Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-03240/USCOURTS-ca10-90-03240-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
John Cless Gardiner
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

PUBLISH 

FILED 

United State::: Cnri; ot Appeds ,.,,..,..fh ~i ... ~nit 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

APR 1 6 1991 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk TENTH CIRCUIT 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellee, ) 

) 

v. ) No. 90-3240 

) 

JOHN CLESS GARDINER, also known ) 

as Charles D. Worrall, Mark ) 

Diamond, Vance Jason, ) 

Theodore Jette and Mark Chandler, ) 

) 

Defendant-Appellant. ) 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the District of Kansas 

(D.C. No. 89-10085-01) 

Submitted on the briefs: 

Steven K. Gradert, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Wichita, 

Kansas, for Defendant-Appellant. 

Lee Thompson, United States Attorney and David M. Lind, Assistant 

United States Attorney, Wichita, Kansas, for Plaintiff-Appellee. 

Before SEYMOUR, ANDERSON, and TACHA, Circuit Judges. 

SEYMOUR, Circuit Judge. 

Appellate Case: 90-3240 Document: 01019299212 Date Filed: 04/16/1991 Page: 1 
John Cless Gardiner appeals the sentence imposed on him 

following his guilty plea. Gardiner contends the district court 

erred by enhancing his offense level by two for obstruction of 

justice pursuant to United States Sentencing Comm'n Guidelines 

Manual§ 3Cl.l (1989) (hereinafter Guidelines). Gardiner argues 

on appeal that his offense level was enhanced erroneously because 

the use of an alias does not merit an obstruction of justice 

enhancement, and because he did not act with an intent to obstruct 

justice. 1 We affirm. 

This court reviews de novo questions involving legal 

interpretation of the Sentencing Guidelines. United States v. 

Davis, 912 F.2d 1210, 1211 (lOth Cir. 1990). Findings of fact 

underlying the application of the Guidelines are reviewed subject 

to a clearly erroneous standard. United States v. Williams, 897 

F.2d 1034, 1041 (lOth Cir. 1990). 

An enhancement of two additional offense levels for 

obstruction of justice is charged against a defendant who "engages 

in conduct calculated to mislead or deceive authorities . • . or 

otherwise to willfully interfere with the disposition of criminal 

1 After exam~n~ng the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); lOth Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-3240 Document: 01019299212 Date Filed: 04/16/1991 Page: 2 
charges." Guidelines§ 3C1.1 (commentary). In this case, the 

district court found that because Gardiner had withheld his true 

identity from law enforcement officers at the time of his arrest 

and from the United States Magistrate at three separate court 

appearances, he had perpetrated a "fraud" and obstructed justice. 

See rec., vel. I, doc. 3; vel. III, at ,r 3 (appearances as 

"Charles Worral[l]" before U.S. Magistrate); and vel. II, at 27 

(findings of sentencing judge). 

In arguing that the use of an alias alone does not merit an 

enhancement under§ 3C1.1, Gardiner relies on the November 1, 1990 

Application Note 4(a) to § 3C1.12 which states that an obstruction 

of justice enhancement pursuant to § 3Cl.1 is not warranted by 

"providing a false name or identification document at arrest, 

except where such conduct actually resulted in a significant 

hindrance to the investigation or prosecution of the instant 

offense." 3 Application Note 4(a), however, does not control the 

outcome of Gardiner's case because he failed to disclose his true 

identity to a United States Magistrate in three separate 

2 Gardiner was sentenced on July 5, 1990. Rec., val. I, doc. 

29, at 1. The United States Sentencing Commission added 

additional Commentary and Application Notes to § 3C1.1 effective 

November 1990. The additions were made in order to clarify the 

operation of existing Guidelines rather than to change them. See 

Guidelines, App. C, note 347. 

3 Similarly, note 4(b) provides that making unsworn, false 

statements to law enforcement officers does not warrant an 

obstruction of justice enhancement unless such a statement 

significantly obstructed or impeded the official investigation 

prosecution of the offense. 

-3-

or 

Appellate Case: 90-3240 Document: 01019299212 Date Filed: 04/16/1991 Page: 3 
appearances, as well as at the time of his arrest. By withholding 

his identity from the United States Magistrate, Gardiner came 

within§ 3C1.1 as clarified by the 1990 Application Note 3(f), 

which states that "providing materially false information to a 

judge or magistrate" merits an obstruction of justice enhancement. 

The district court thus correctly interpreted Guidelines § 3C1.1 

as permitting an obstruction of justice enhancement under the 

circumstances of this case based solely on Gardiner's use of an 

alias. See, ~, United States v. Patterson, 890 F.2d 69, 72 

(8th Cir. 1989)(defendant's refusal to reveal his true identity to 

the pretrial services officer and magistrate warranted obstruction 

of justice enhancement). 

Gardiner also argues that the facts surrounding his arrest 

and prosecution do not demonstrate he acted with an intent to 

obstruct justice, and that the sentencing judge made no clear-cut 

finding of intent to warrant an obstruction of justice 

enhancement. Such an enhancement applies only if the defendant 

"willfully" obstructed justice. Guidelines, § 3C1.1. Section 

3C1.1 has been interpreted as contemplating that a defendant 

subject to an obstruction of justice enhancement must have acted 

with a specific mens rea. See United States v. Stroud, 893 F.2d 

504, 507 (2d Cir. 1990); United States v. Teta, 918 F.2d 1329, 

1333 (7th Cir. 1990); see also United States v. Wilson, 904 F.2d 

234, 235 (5th Cir. 1990). In other words, a defendant must have 

-4-

Appellate Case: 90-3240 Document: 01019299212 Date Filed: 04/16/1991 Page: 4 
consciously acted with the purpose of obstructing justice. 

Stroud, 893 F.2d at 507; Teta, 918 F.2d at 1333. 

On appeal, Gardiner argues that he did not possess an intent 

to obstruct justice because: (1) at the time of his arrest he was 

intoxicated; (2) even though he verbally gave an alias when he was 

arrested, he gave his driver's license bearing his true identity 

to the F.B.I.; and (3) at the times he continued to give an alias 

before the magistrate, he did so on the advice of counsel. 

None of these facts preclude a finding of intent in this 

case. Although Gardiner may have been intoxicated at the time of 

his arrest, he does not argue he was intoxicated each time he 

appeared before the magistrate. Although he gave his driver's 

license to the F.B.I., he permitted law enforcement officers as 

well as the court to prosecute him as "Charles Worral[l]." 

Finally, with respect to Gardiner's assertion that he acted on 

advice of counsel so as not to incriminate himself, rec., vol. II, 

at 12, the district court made the express finding that Gardiner 

would have used an alias regardless of his attorney's advice, id. 

at 16. The record reveals that Gardiner used an alias over a 

period of several years, rec., vol. III, at, 30, including at a 

time when other criminal proceedings were pending against him, and 

that Gardiner did not abandon his alias in the instant case until 

his true name was determined by the F.B.I. from his fingerprints, 

-5-

Appellate Case: 90-3240 Document: 01019299212 Date Filed: 04/16/1991 Page: 5 
id. at ,g. These facts support the finding that Gardiner intended 

to obstruct justice. 

Contrary to Gardiner's assertion, the district court made the 

necessary finding of intent to charge Gardiner with an obstruction 

of justice enhancement. At one point during the sentencing 

hearing the district court said it was willing to enhance 

Gardiner's sentence regardless of intent but, in the very next 

sentence, the court declared: "I think the probation office's 

analysis of that [the obstruction of justice enhancement] is a 

hundred percent correct." Rec., val. II, at 21.:.28. The court was 

referring to the probation office's presentence report which 

explicitly stated: "It is the probation office's opinion Mr. 

Gardiner gave the alias Charles Worrall as his name to officials 

in an effort to obstruct justice knowing that his prior criminal 

history record would not be learned as easily as it would have 

been had he provided his true name." Rec., vol. III, at 11 7 3 

(emphasis added). The district court thus found that Gardiner had 

acted with the requisite intent to obstruct justice, and we are 

not persuaded that this finding is clearly erroneous. 

In consideration of the foregoing, we AFFIRM the district 

court's application of the obstruction of justice enhancement and 

sentence of the defendant. 

-6-

Appellate Case: 90-3240 Document: 01019299212 Date Filed: 04/16/1991 Page: 6