United States v. Parra, 112816 FED9, 15-10583

Docket Nº:15-10583
Party Name:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. LANCE PARRA, Defendant-Appellant.
Judge Panel:Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judge, and EZRA, District Judge.
Case Date:November 28, 2016
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

LANCE PARRA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 15-10583

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

November 28, 2016

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

Submitted November 15, 2016 [**] San Francisco, California

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona James Alan Soto, District Judge, Presiding D.C. No. 4:15-cr-00646-BPV-1

Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judge, and EZRA, [***] District Judge.

MEMORANDUM [*]

Lance Parra ("Appellant") appeals his 33-month sentence of imprisonment for possessing a prohibited object in prison, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1791(a)(2) and (b)(1). He raises three issues on appeal: (1) whether the district court erred in finding that he willfully obstructed justice; (2) whether the district court violated his First Amendment right to free speech by applying an obstruction of justice enhancement at sentencing; and (3) whether the district court erred by imposing a substantively unreasonable sentence. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.

Because the parties are familiar with the facts of the case, we do not recite them except to the extent necessary to aid in understanding this disposition.

1. United States Sentencing Guideline ("USSG") § 3C1.1 authorizes a two-level enhancement to a base offense level [i]f (1) the defendant willfully obstructed or impeded, or attempted to obstruct or impede, the administration of justice with respect to the investigation, prosecution, or sentencing of the instant offense of conviction, and (2) the obstructive conduct related to (A) the defendant's offense of conviction and any relevant conduct; or (B) a closely related offense . . . .

We review a district court's factual determination under Section 3C1.1 for clear error. United States v. Taylor, 749 F.3d 842, 845 (9th Cir. 2014).

Appellant contends that the district court committed clear error in finding that he willfully obstructed justice. We disagree. Appellant's girlfriend gave sworn testimony that Appellant instructed her not to speak to the FBI during the FBI's investigation into his instant...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP