Case: 24-50694 Document: 73-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/18/2025

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 24-50694 Summary Calendar FILED ____________ September 18, 2025 Lyle W. Cayce United States of America, Clerk Plaintiff—Appellee, versus Manuel Garcia-Montero, Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 2:22-CR-684-1 ______________________________ Before Stewart, Graves, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam: * Manuel Garcia-Montero appeals the 42-month within-guidelines sentence imposed by the district court after his guilty plea conviction for illegally reentering the United States. He argues that the district court erred in denying him a reduction for acceptance of responsibility under U.S.S.G.

§ 3E1.1.

_____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

Case: 24-50694 Document: 73-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/18/2025

No. 24-50694

Because he preserved the issue, we review the district court’s denial of a reduction for acceptance of responsibility using “a standard even more deferential than a purely clearly erroneous standard.” United States v. Washington, 340 F.3d 222, 227 (5th Cir. 2003) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The Sentencing Guidelines provide for a two-level reduction to defendant’s base offense level “[i]f the defendant clearly demonstrates acceptance of responsibility for his offense.” § 3E1.1(a).

Evidence of defendant’s acceptance of responsibility may be outweighed by conduct inconsistent with such a claim. See § 3E1.1, comment. (n.3). The defendant has the burden of proving his entitlement to the reduction. United States v. Sanchez-Ruedas, 452 F.3d 409, 414-15 (5th Cir. 2006).

Here, the record supports the district court’s finding that Garcia- Montero provided false information regarding his true identity. Additionally, he does not dispute that his conduct warranted the obstruction of justice enhancement he received, and, “[o]rdinarily, conduct that results in an enhancement for obstruction of justice [] indicates that the defendant has not accepted responsibility for his criminal conduct.” United States v. Juarez- Duarte, 513 F.3d 204, 211 (5th Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

Accordingly, Garcia-Montero has not shown the district court’s denial of a reduction for acceptance of responsibility was without foundation.

See United States v. Lord, 915 F.3d 1009, 1017 (5th Cir. 2019).

AFFIRMED.