Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-15-01689/USCOURTS-ca8-15-01689-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ronald L. Roberts
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 15-1689

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Ronald L. Roberts

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis

____________

 Submitted: January 15, 2016

 Filed: April 28, 2016

[Unpublished]

____________

Before LOKEN, GRUENDER, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

Ronald Roberts pleaded guilty to one count of mail fraud and two counts of

wire fraud. At sentencing, the district court applied a two-level enhancement for

1

The Honorable E. Richard Webber, United States District Court for the 1

Eastern District of Missouri.

Appellate Case: 15-1689 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/28/2016 Entry ID: 4393015 
obstruction of justice over Roberts’s objection. Roberts argues on appeal that the

Government did not establish his specific intent to obstruct justice and that the district

court therefore erred by applying the enhancement. We affirm.

Ronald Roberts owned a parcel of land in Neelyville, Missouri. Around

October 2010, he began soliciting funds from lenders to complete a fictitious realestate deal involving this tract. Roberts told lenders that Wal-Mart or another large

developer wanted to purchase his property. He explained that the deal was stalled,

however, because he first had to satisfy various liens, buy out other family members’

sharesin the land, and performenvironmental remediation. Roberts promised lenders

that they would receive considerable interest or a portion of the $7 million to $22

million payout he expected from the deal. As a result of this scheme, Roberts

collected $2,832,943, either directlyfromlenders orindirectlythrough intermediaries. 

Roberts spent the majority of these funds gambling at a local casino.

Law enforcement received reports of the scheme and conducted an

investigation. The investigators determined that Wal-Mart never made an offer or

expressed any interest in Roberts’s land. In fact, the tract owned by Roberts was less

than ten acres, and its market value was under $30,000. The tract also was

encumbered by a judgment against Roberts in excess of $13 million. A grand jury

indicted Roberts, and he pleaded guilty to one count of mail fraud and two counts of

wire fraud. Roberts’s presentence investigation report recommended a two-level

enhancement for obstruction of justice, noting that “during the investigation for the

[fraud] offense, [Roberts] repeatedly contacted victims and threatened them with

violence in an effort to have them not cooperate with law enforcement.” Roberts

objected to the report’s assertions that he willfully attempted to obstruct justice.

At sentencing, the Government called several witnesses, including M.B., a

victimof the scam, to discuss Roberts’s obstructive conduct. M.B. explained thatshe

invested in the scheme after a friend approached her about the fictitious land deal. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 15-1689 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/28/2016 Entry ID: 4393015 
M.B. initially loanedRoberts $15,000 and received a promissory note. Soon after she

made this loan, her friend informed her that a complication prevented the land deal

from taking place and that M.B. needed to loan an additional $10,000. M.B.

expressed doubts about the real-estate transaction, but Roberts assured her that the

investment was a “real deal.” M.B. eventually loaned Roberts an additional $26,000. 

After the deal failed to take place, M.B. investigated Roberts’s background and

learned that he had a prior conviction. She confronted Roberts, saying that she knew

that he was on probation. She warned him, “If you don’t bring me my money back,

you’re going to go back to jail.” Robertsresponded, “I will blow your ass to kingdom

come.”

The district court stated that it believed “without any doubt” that Roberts had

made that statement to M.B. Based principally on M.B.’s testimony, the court

concluded that Roberts willfully obstructed or impeded, or attempted to obstruct or

impede, the administration of justice. The court then applied a two-level

enhancement under USSG § 3C1.1 and sentenced Roberts to 68 months’

imprisonment, a sentence within his advisory guidelines range of 57-71 months. 

Because the court placed the greatest weight on M.B.’s testimony and because

the court could have imposed the enhancement based on a single instance of

obstructive conduct, we focus our analysis on whether Roberts’s statement, as

described by M.B., supported the enhancement under USSG § 3C1.1. This section

of the Guidelines Manual states that a court should increase a defendant’s offense

level by two if:

(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.

-3-

Appellate Case: 15-1689 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/28/2016 Entry ID: 4393015 
USSG § 3C1.1. Note 4 to this section sets out a non-exhaustive list of acts that

constitute obstructing or impeding justice for the purposes of this enhancement. As

relevant here, one example is “threatening the victim of the offense in an attempt to

prevent the victimfromreporting the conduct constituting the offense of conviction.” 

Id. cmt. n.4(K).

Roberts does not dispute the court’s decision to credit M.B.’s testimony, and

we see no reason to disturb the court’s credibility determination. See United States

v. Jefferson, 725 F.3d 829, 834 (8th Cir. 2013) (“[A] district court’s assessment of

witness credibility is quintessentially a judgment call and virtually unassailable on

appeal.”) (quoting United States v. Rodriguez, 711 F.3d 928, 938 (8th Cir. 2013)). 

Roberts’s sole contention on appeal is that the enhancement was improper because

the evidence did not support the district court’s conclusion that Roberts had the

requisite mens rea. He contends that the court erred by implicitly determining that

he acted “consciously . . . with the purpose of obstructing justice.” United States v.

Watts, 940 F.2d 332, 332-33 (8th Cir. 1991) (quoting United States v. Stroud, 893

F.2d 504, 507 (2d Cir. 1990)). We review the court’s factual finding on this issue for

clear error. United States v. Aleman, 548 F.3d 1158, 1163 (8th Cir. 2008). We

reverse only if “we are left ‘with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has

been committed.’” United States v. Williams, 605 F.3d 556, 570 (8th Cir. 2010)

(quoting United States v. Lalley, 257 F.3d 751, 758 (8th Cir. 2001)).

The Government does not need to prove intent directly. United States v. Idriss,

436 F.3d 946, 950 (8th Cir. 2006). Intent instead may “be inferred from the facts and

circumstances surrounding a defendant’s actions.” Id. (quoting United States v.

Patten, 397 F.3d 1100, 1103 (8th Cir. 2005)). M.B. testified that Roberts said he

would “blow [her] ass to kingdom come” in response to her warning that she knew

who he was and that he would go to jail if he did not return her funds. The context

of this exchange allowed the court to infer that Roberts made the statement in an

attempt to deter M.B. from going to police. See United States v. Nunn, 940 F.2d

-4-

Appellate Case: 15-1689 Page: 4 Date Filed: 04/28/2016 Entry ID: 4393015 
1128, 1130, 1133 (8th Cir. 1991) (finding that an implicit threat made over a phone

call supported the obstruction enhancement); accord United States v. Reeves, 586

F.3d 20, 23 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (noting that a court may infer intent if the defendant

engages in behavior that a rational person would expect to obstruct justice).

We find unavailing Roberts’s attempt to undermine the district court’s

conclusion regarding his intent. Although he characterizes his statement as mere

“hyperbole” and “angry rhetoric,” his contention does not prevent the court from

determining that his statement qualified as a threat made in “an attempt to prevent the

victim from reporting the conduct constituting the offense of conviction.” USSG

§ 3C1.1 cmt. n.4(K). Even if Roberts made this comment in the course of a heated

argument, he nevertheless indicated that M.B. would suffer bodily harm after she

threatened to report his fraud. Based on this context, we do not have a definite and

firm conviction that the district court made a mistake when it determined Roberts had

the requisite intent. Cf. United States v. Byas, 581 F.3d 723, 725 (8th Cir. 2009)

(noting that a district court’s choice between permissible views of the evidence

cannot be clearly erroneous). The evidence therefore was sufficient to support the

district court’s conclusion that Roberts willfully obstructed or impeded, or attempted

to obstruct or impede, the administration of justice. We affirm.2

____________________________

Roberts raises no challenge regarding the substantive reasonableness of his

2

sentence.

-5-

Appellate Case: 15-1689 Page: 5 Date Filed: 04/28/2016 Entry ID: 4393015