Case Explained: United States of America Plaintiff— v. Jhonaker Manuel Arrieta Defendant—

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Filed: 2026-06-29 The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s sentencing of Jhonaker Manuel Arrieta, holding that the lower court did not clearly err in classifying his offense under U.S.S.G. § 2P1.3(a)(2) as involving a “major disruption to the operation of an institution.” The court applied a de novo standard to the interpretation of the Sentencing Guidelines and a clear error standard to the district court’s factual findings, determining that the phrase “major disruption” requires an interruption that is “important, serious, or significant” rather than every minor administrative pause. The court rejected Arrieta’s arguments that his conduct constituted only a non-violent protest warranting the lowest base offense level of 10, noting that he preserved his objection to the higher tier and did not invite error by suggesting level 16 as an alternative. The opinion found ample record support for the district court’s conclusion, citing the six detainees’ three-and-a-half-hour rooftop standoff involving threats to jump, the deployment of specialized law-enforcement teams and sublethal munitions, and the resulting six-hour facility lockdown that suspended dining, canceled activities, and cut off access to attorneys and families. The court concluded this sequence of events met the ordinary meaning of a major disruption under the Guidelines without requiring proof of violence or substantial risk of serious bodily injury, which are elements reserved for the higher tier under § 2P1.3(a)(1). As a result of the affirmation, Arrieta’s sentence of fifteen months’ imprisonment, three years of supervised release, and a $100 special assessment remains in effect. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.