Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-01611/USCOURTS-ca8-06-01611-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Alfred M. Craft
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Susan Webber Wright, United States District Judge for the

Eastern District of Arkansas.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-1611

___________

United States of America, * 

* 

Appellee, * 

* Appeal from the United States 

v. * District Court for the 

* Eastern District of Arkansas.

Alfred M. Craft, * 

* 

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: November 13, 2006

Filed: March 7, 2007

___________

Before RILEY, BEAM, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

SMITH, Circuit Judge.

A jury found Alfred M. Craft guilty of two counts of witness tampering in

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1512. At sentencing, the court1

 enhanced Craft's sentence

after determining that he had obstructed justice by misleading investigators about his

finances. Craft appeals, arguing, that the evidence is insufficient to support (1) his

witness tampering convictions and (2) his enhanced sentence for obstruction of

justice. Finding ample record evidence to support both the conviction and the sentence

enhancement, we affirm. 

Appellate Case: 06-1611 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/07/2007 Entry ID: 3285558
-2-

I. Background

Craft, a farmer, baited carcasses with Temik, a federally-regulated pesticide, to

poison coyotes, buzzards, and other unwanted animals entering his property.

Neighbors reported Craft to authorities, who, after obtaining a warrant, found the

remains of poisoned animals, as well as bags of Temik. After his indictment by a

grand jury, Craft contacted two potential witnesses and instructed them not to

cooperate with investigators. The government alleges that these conversations violated

witness tampering laws. The witnesses Scottie Shreve, Craft's employee, and Debbie

Tatum, Craft's ex-wife, testified for the government. 

Craft pleaded guilty to the wildlife violations, and the jury convicted him of

unlawful use of a pesticide and two counts of witness tampering. At sentencing, the

government successfully sought an obstruction of justice enhancement, alleging that

Craft tried to mislead investigators attempting to determine his net worth for

sentencing purposes. 

Craft appeals, contending that the evidence was insufficient to support the two

witness tampering convictions. He also asserts that the court erred by imposing the

obstruction enhancement.

II. Discussion

"Evidence is sufficient to sustain a conviction if, viewing the evidence in the

light most favorable to the government, a rational trier of fact could have found the

essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt." United States v. Hollins,

432 F.3d 809, 811 (8th Cir. 2005) (internal citation omitted). The government receives

the benefit of reasonable inferences that may be drawn from the evidence. United

States v. Cunningham, 83 F.3d 218, 222 (8th Cir. 1996). We will set aside a verdict

only if the evidence weighs heavily enough against the verdict that a miscarriage of

justice may have occurred. United States v. Rodriguez, 812 F.2d 414, 417 (8th Cir.

1987).

Appellate Case: 06-1611 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/07/2007 Entry ID: 3285558
-3-

A. Influencing the Testimony of Shreve

Section 1512 prohibits any party from improperly interfering with information

provided by another to investigators or the courts. To prove that Craft attempted to

illegally influence the testimony of another, the government must establish two

elements: first, that Craft knowingly engaged in corrupt persuasion and second, that

the acts of corrupt persuasion were intended to influence the testimony of another in

an official proceeding or during the course of an official investigation. Arthur

Andersen LLP v. United States, 544 U.S. 696, 705 (2005). Craft alleges the

government failed to prove either element. 

To convict a defendant of knowingly engaging in corrupt persuasion, a jury

must determine that the defendant acted with "consciousness of wrongdoing." Id. at

706; see also United States v. Bennington, 168 F.3d 1060, 1066 (8th Cir. 1999)

(holding that "[t]he ambiguous term 'corruptly persuades' includes 'attempting to

persuade someone to provide false information to federal investigators'") (quoting

United States v. Farrell, 126 F.3d 484, 488 (3d Cir. 1997)). 

At trial, Shreve testified that Craft made several subtle threats against his job.

The government substantiated Shreve's testimony with recorded conversations in

which Craft insisted that Shreve tell investigators that he could not remember specific

events and advising Shreve to mislead investigators. Craft insists that the testimonial

evidence and recordings merely show that he was advising Shreve of the Fifth

Amendment right against self-incrimination.

The jury rejected this argument. Viewing the evidence in the light most

favorable to the government, we cannot say that the evidence weighs heavily enough

against the verdict that a miscarriage of justice may have occurred. Rodriguez, 812

F.2d at 417. We hold that the government produced sufficient evidence to prove that

Craft acted with consciousness of wrongdoing and intended to influence Shreve's

testimony. 

Appellate Case: 06-1611 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/07/2007 Entry ID: 3285558
-4-

B. Influencing the Testimony of Tatum

The jury also convicted Craft of illegally attempting to influence the testimony

of his ex-wife, Tatum. She testified that Craft called her repeatedly, each time insisting

that she not talk to investigators. Tatum also testified that Craft told her that if she

"crossed him," then she could get hurt and that she would regret it. Craft argues that

he was under the mistaken impression that his conversations with Tatum would be

protected by spousal privilege and, therefore, he was merely informing Tatum of her

right not to speak to authorities pursuant to that privilege. The jury disbelieved Craft

and did not do so unreasonably. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to

the government, we cannot say that the evidence weighs so heavily against the verdict

that a miscarriage of justice may have occurred. Rodriguez, 812 F.2d at 417.

III. Obstruction of Justice Enhancement

"We review the district court's factual findings for clear error, but review de

novo its determination that an obstruction of justice enhancement applies." United

States v. Otto, 64 F.3d 367, 370 (8th Cir. 1995). We give "great deference" to a district

court's decision to impose an obstruction of justice enhancement, but we will reverse

the enhancement when the district court's findings are insufficient. United States v.

Flores, 362 F.3d 1030, 1038 (8th Cir. 2004). 

A district court may enhance a defendant's offense level under the Guidelines

if the defendant "provid[es] materially false information to a probation officer in

respect to a presentence or other investigation for the court." U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1, cmt.

n. 4(h). Attempting to conceal one's financial assets from a probation officer can

constitute obstruction of justice. United States v. Anderson, 68 F.3d 1050, 1056 (8th

Cir. 1995); United States v. Lloyd, 947 F.2d 339 (8th Cir. 1991).

The district court based its enhancements upon four factual conclusions. First,

Craft intentionally misrepresented the value of his assets, including his mortgage, to

cause investigators to undervalue his net worth. Second, he attempted to liquidate his

Appellate Case: 06-1611 Page: 4 Date Filed: 03/07/2007 Entry ID: 3285558
-5-

assets and use the proceeds to buy gold and silver, which he could hide from

investigators. Third, he attempted to transfer several other assets to his children to

avoid collection. Lastly, he purposely directed investigators to an accountant who had

no knowledge of Craft's assets or financial affairs. 

Many of these factual findings are supported by recorded conversations

between Craft and Shreve. These recordings clearly show that Craft planned to

liquidate several of his assets and transfer others to his children. The court's factual

findings were also supported by the testimony of investigators. Further, Craft does not

dispute that he referred investigators to the wrong accountant; instead, he maintains

that this referral was a simple mistake. Whether it was purposeful or a mistake was

ultimately a question of witness credibility, which we have held is "is an issue for the

sentencing judge that is virtually unreviewable on appeal." United States v. Behler, 14

F.3d 1264, 1273 (8th Cir. 1994) (internal citation and quotations omitted).

Accordingly, we find no clear error, as each of these findings is amply

supported by the record. 

IV. Conclusion

We hold that the evidence was sufficient to convict Craft of witness tampering.

We also hold that the district court did not clearly err by enhancing Craft's sentence

for obstruction of justice. The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-1611 Page: 5 Date Filed: 03/07/2007 Entry ID: 3285558