# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 1- 23 96

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l App el le e

v.

Hug o Gal av iz , als o k no wn as Big Happ y

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l App el la nt

__ __ __ __ __ __

App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t

fo r th e Dis tri ct of Ne br as ka

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: May 15, 2 01 2

Fil ed : Au gu st 6, 2 01 2

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re WOL LMAN, ARNOLD, and SMITH, Ci rcu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __

ARNOLD, Circu it Ju dg e.

Afte r Hug o Gala vi z pl ead ed gu il ty to dis tr ibu tin g m et ha m phe ta m ine, 21 U.S.C.

§ 84 1( a)(1 ), (b )(1 ), an d be in g a fel on in po ss es si on of a f i r e a r m

, 18 U.S.C.

§§ 92 2( g) (1 ), 92 4( a)(2 ), th e di s t r i c t co ur t se nt en ced hi m to 15 1 m on th s'

im pr is on m en t

. M r

. Gala vi z ap pe al s hi s se nt en ce, rai si ng as hi s so le is su e th epr op rie ty of th e di st ric t co ur t's en ha nc em en t of hi s se nt en ce fo r ob st ru ct in g just ic e.

Se e U.S.S.G. § 3 C1 .1. We reve rs e.

As re le va nt he re, § 3C 1.1 pro vi de s t ha t a d efen da nt 's o ffen se lev el sh ou ld be

en ha nc ed two le ve ls if he "wi ll fu ll y

... at te m pt ed to ob st ru ct

... th e ad m in is tra ti on of

jus ti ce wit h re s p e ct to

... th e se nt en ci ng of th e in st an t of fen se of co nv ic ti on ." The

di st ric t cou rt fou nd on a su ffi ci en t reco rd th at whi le in pr is on

, aft er ple ad in g gu il ty,

Mr. Gala vi z en ga ge d in a co ns pi racy t o m ur de r Ube ld o Lo pe z-Go nz al ez, wh o was

a co nf id en ti al in fo rm an t in th e cas e. Th e d i s t r i c t co ur t al so fo un d, ag ai n on a

su ffi c i e n t r e c or d, th at Mr. Gala vi z's m ot iv e fo r en te rin g th e co ns pi racy was to

ret al ia te ag ai ns t Mr. Lo p e z f o r h is co op erat io n wit h th e go ve rn m en t. Bu t be cau se

Mr. Gala vi z ha d al read y pl ead ed gu il ty, he co ul d no t ha ve in te nd ed to ob st ru ct jus ti ce

"wi th res pe ct to th e in st an t offe ns e" by pl ot ti ng to ki ll Mr. Lop ez u nl es s h e th ou gh t

th at Mr. Lop ez was go in g to te st ify ag ai ns t hi m at se nt en ci ng

, an d th at in de ed was th e

go ve rn m en t's th eo ry

in th e fi rs t b rie f th at it fil ed in th is co ur t. The in fir m it y of t hi s

po si ti on is th at th e reco rd wil l no t su pp or t a fin d i n g th at Mr. Gala vi z ha d reas on to

th in k t ha t M r. Lop ez wo ul d b e a wit ne ss ag ai ns t h im at s en te nc in g.

Th e d i ss en t su gg es ts th at we are in ti m at in g th at "a pr ob ab il it y th at t h e

go ve rn m en t co ul d cal l th e co nf id en ti al in fo rm an t at a se nt e n c i n g he ari ng is

in su ffi ci en t to es ta bl is h" an en ha nc em en t fo r ob st ru ct io n of jus ti ce i f th e de fen da nt

co ns pi res to ki ll th e co nf

id en ti al in fo rm an t. On th e co nt rary, th ou gh th at cas e is no t

be fo re us

, a pr ob ab il it y th at a w i t n e s s wou ld be cal le d at se nt en ci ng m ig ht well

su pp or t an in fere nc e th at a de fen da nt 's effo rt to ha ve th e pr ob ab le wit ne ss ki ll ed was

m ot iv at ed by a de si re to el im in at e th e wit ne ss 's te st im on y

. Bu t th e reco rd in th is cas e

do es no t su pp or t th e pr em is e th at it was pr ob ab le th at Mr. Lop ez wou ld te st ify at th e

ti m e Mr. Gala vi z en te red in to th e co ns pi racy to ki ll hi m or du rin g th e ti m e whe n

Mr. Gala vi z was in vo lv ed in th e co ns pi racy. Any in fere nc e th at su ch a pr em is e m ig ht

su pp or t m

us t th ere f

o r e fai l. The di st ric t co ur t, m or eo ve r, ne ve r fo un d th at th e

pr em is e ex is te d, p art ly becau se th e g ov ern m en t n ev er as ke d i t t o d o s o.

-2

-In a su pp le m en ta l su bm is si on

, th e go ve rn m en t ch an ge s it s arg um en t an d no w

fo r th e fir st ti m e m ai nt ai ns th at a ge ne ral ret al ia to ry m ot iv e th at rel at es to th e of fen se

of co nv ic ti on is su ffi ci en t to t r i g g e r th e en ha nc em en t. The di ffi cu lt y wit h th is

co nt en ti on is th at

, as rel ev an t he re, th e gu id el in e sp eci fic al ly req ui res a wil l fu l

at t e mp t t o o b st ru ct th e se nt en ci ng pr oc es s fo r it to be ap pl ic ab le

. The go ve rn m en t

dr aws ou r at te nt io n to Uni te d St at es v. W ah ls tr om

, 58 8 F.3 d 5 3 8, 54 2- 46 (8 th Ci r.

20 09 ), whi ch in vo lv ed a de fen da nt 's th reat to k i l l t h e wife of th e AUSA who was

pr os ecu ti ng hi s cas e. Bu t th at cas e is di ffer en t fro m ou rs

, be cau se a de fen da nt 's th reat

to a pr os ecu to r or hi s fam il y co ul d we l l a f f e c t or hi nd er th e pr os ecu ti on of th e

de fen da nt 's cas e, or

, at le as t, a de fen da nt m ig ht th in k so

. Here, the re is no ev id en ce

th at ret al ia ti on wou ld im

pe de th e p ro gr es s o f Mr. Gal av iz 's c as e in an y way , or t ha t

he co ul d h av e th ou gh t t ha t i t wo ul d.

Mr. Gal av iz can of c ou rs e b e p ro se cu te d b y a pr op er au th or it y

for pl ot ti ng to

ki ll Mr. Lop ez. Bu t th e se nt en ci ng en ha nc em en t do es no t ap pl y be cau se th ere is no

sh owi ng th at th e pl ot was in te nd ed t o o b s t r u ct jus ti ce on th e in st an t of fen se of

co nv ic ti on

.

W e th eref

or e rev ers e th e se nt en ce an d re m an d fo r fu rth er p ro ceed in gs

.

SMI TH, Circ ui t J ud ge , di ss en ti ng

.

The m ajor it y ho ld s th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in fin di ng th at Gala vi z

o b s t r u ct ed jus ti ce by pa rti ci pa ti ng in a co ns pi racy to ki ll th e go ve rn m en t' s

co nf id en ti al in fo rm an t an d pr in ci pa l wit ne ss in th e pr os ecu to ria l pr oc es s us ed to

co nv ic t Gala vi z an d who pr ov id ed te st im on y a t Gala vi z's su bs eq ue nt se nt en ci ng

he ari ng . The cou rt th us in te rp ret s U.S.S.G § 3C1 .1 in su ch m an ne r th at it can no t b e

us ed to en ha nc e a de fen da nt 's se nt e n c e f o r o bs tru ct io n of jus ti ce fo r co ns pi rin g to

m ur de r th e go ve r n men t's pr in ci pa l wit ne ss be cau se Gala vi z's m ot iv e was si m pl y

-3

-ret al ia ti on fo r th e w i t n e s s be in g a sn it ch an d no t an effo rt to pr ev en t th e wit ne ss 's 1

av ai la bi li ty fo r hi s pe nd in g se nt en ci ng he ari ng

. Bec a u s e I be li ev e th at th e di st ric t

co ur t di d no t err in fin di ng th at Gala vi z's at te m pt to ki ll th e go ve rn m en t's co nf id en ti al

in fo rm an t am ou nt ed to an ob st ru ct io n o f jus ti ce, I re sp ect fu ll y di ss en t.

The co ur t fin ds th at th e go ve rn m en t d i d n o t pr ov e th at Gala vi z kn ew th e

wit ne ss wou ld tes ti fy

at h is sen te nc in g h eari ng an d t hu s co ul d no t ha ve in te nd ed to

ob st ru ct or im

pe de th e se nt en ci ng fo r hi s of fen s e of co nv ic ti on

. The m ajor it y th us

m ak es an d th en acce pt s a be tt er arg um en t fo r rev ers al th an Gala vi z m ad e fo r hi m se lf.

Gala vi z's br ie f an d su pp le m en ta l bri ef argu e th at no ob st ru ct io n t oo k p la ce beca us e

th e in ve st ig at io n was co m pl et e; he ha d al read y pl ead ed gu il ty an d in hi s wor ds

, "t he

at te m pt ed th reat of ha rm to a wit ne ss wou ld ha ve ha d no im pa ct on th e cas e ag ai ns t

Ga l a vi z at th e ti m e th e co nd uc t oc cu rred ." He co nc lu de s hi s arg um en t by st at in g,

"as su m in g th at th ere is su ffi ci en t ev id en ce to sh ow th at Gala vi z ob st ru ct ed or

at te m pt ed to ob st ru ct jus ti ce

, su ch act io ns wou ld ha ve ha d no effe ct on th e

in ve st ig at io n, pr os ecu ti on or se nt en ci ng of th e of fen se s of co nv ic ti on in th is cas e as

is req ui red by U.S.S.G. § 3C 1.1 ." Yet, Gala vi z ack no wled ge s th at he pa rti ci pa te d in

co nv ers at io ns wit h a co -co ns pi rat or two week s be fo re th e se nt en ci ng he ari ng

reg ard in g an at te m

pt to ki ll a co nf

id en ti al in fo rm an t. Gala vi z's arg um en t fai ls to ta ke

in to acco un t th at an act ua l ob st ru ct io n ne ed n ot ha ve oc cu rred be cau se th e

en ha nc em en t ap pl ie s to at te m pt s as well as co m

pl et ed cri m es

. W e ha ve st at ed

, "[a ]n

at te m pt to in ti m id at e or th reat en a wit ne ss

, ev en if un su cces sf ul

, is su ffi ci en t to

su st ai n a two -le ve l en ha nc em en t fo r ob st ru ct io n of jus ti ce." Uni te d St at es v. Ca rr il lo

,

38 0 F.3 d 41 1, 41 5 (8 th Ci r. 20 04 ) (q uo ta ti on s an d ci ta ti on s om it te d)

. Fu rth er, "[t ]he

la ng ua ge of § 3C 1.1 is br oa d, an d a s th e co m m en ta ry reco gn iz es

, '[o ]bst ru ct iv e

co nd uc t can va ry wid el y in na tu re, de gr ee of pl an ni ng

, an d se rio u s n e s s .'" Uni te d

St at es v. W

ah ls tr om

, 58 8 F.3 d 53 8, 54 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ) (q uo ti ng U.S.S.G. § 3 C 1

. 1

A sn it ch is a ne ga ti ve sl an g te rm of fen de rs us e to de sc rib e an in fo rm an t. W hi te 1

v. Fox , No. 1 0- 40 84 3, 2 01 2 WL 63 85 69 at * 6 (5 th Cir . Feb 28 , 20 12 ).

-4

-n.3 ). Fi na ll y

, th is ci rcu it up h o l d s th e ap pl ic at io n of an ob st ru ct io n of jus ti ce

en ha nc em en t rega rd le ss of "wh et he r [t he de fen da nt was] m ot iv at ed by th e de si re to

im pe de th e p ro ceed in gs or b y ve ng ean ce." Id

. at 5 45

.

Pl an ni ng to m

ur de r a po te nt ia l wit ne ss is su rel y an at te m pt to affe ct wha te ve r

ph as e of a pr os ecu ti on rem ai ns i n c o mp l e t e whe th er or no t it wou ld al so se rv e as

ret rib ut io n fo r sn it ch in g. Bu t th e m ajor it y ho ld s th at Gala vi z m us t ha ve ha d in te nd ed

t o o b s t r uc t a sp eci fic pr oc eed in g, an d th us m erel y ag reei ng to ki ll a pe rs on t h a t

as si st ed th e go ve rn m en t in g a r n e r i n g a co nv ic ti on in hi s cas e is in su ffi ci en t.

Sp eci fic al ly, t he m ajor it y fin ds th at th e go ve rn m en t m us t pr ov e th at Gala vi z kn ew

th at th e go ve rn m en t was go in g to cal l th e co nf id en ti al in fo rm an t at h is se nt en ci ng

h eari ng be fo re th e di st ric t co ur t co ul d ap pl y an ob st ru ct io n en ha nc em en t. I n o t h e r

wor ds

, a pr ob ab il it y th at th e go ve rn m en t c ou ld cal l th e co nf id en ti al in fo rm an t at a

se nt en ci ng he ari ng is in su ffi ci en t to es ta bl is h a n o b s t r u ct io n of jus ti ce ch arg e by a

pr ep on de ran ce of th e ev id en ce ev en if th e de fen da nt

, by ob jecti ng to th e PSR, m ad e

it m or e p ro ba bl e th at th e g ov ern m en t wo ul d c al l t he co nf id en ti al in fo rm an t.

I wou ld ho ld th at th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t err in co nc lu di ng th at Gala vi z co ul d

ha ve in te nd ed to ob st ru ct hi s se nt en ci ng he ari ng by at te m pt in g to ki ll th e co nf

id en ti al

in fo rm an t. At th e ti m e he en te red th e co ns pi racy, Gala vi z 's se nt en ci ng rem ai ne d

pe nd in g. Gala vi z fil ed an ob jecti on to th e PSR on A p r i l 4, 20 11 ; th us m ak in g a

he ari ng on at le as t so m e is su es pr ob ab le

. He th en su bs eq ue nt ly co ns pi red to ta ke th e

li fe of th e co nf

id en ti al in fo rm an t who ha d gi ve n in cri m in at in g st at em en ts ag ai ns t hi m

th at le d to Gala vi z's gu il ty pl ea. Thu s, at th e ti m e Gala vi z en te red in to th e co ns pi racy

it was pr ob ab le th at th e go ve rn m en t wou ld ha ve cal le d th e co nf id en ti al in fo rm an t to

te st ify at Gala vi z's se nt en ci ng he ari ng (wh ic h th e in fo rm an t ul ti m at el y di d do ). In m y

vi ew, th e fact t h a t Gala vi z kn ew th at th e co nf id en ti al in fo rm an t was a sn it ch an d 2

Gala vi z kn ew th at Lop ez was a sn it ch an d an im po rta nt sn it ch at th at be cau se 2

Lop ez pu rch as ed th e gu n fro m G a l a vi z, whi ch th e go ve rn m en t us ed to ap pl y th e

-5

-as si st ed th e go ve rn m en t in it s cas e ag ai ns t hi m

, an d th e fact th at Gala vi z's

pr oc eed in gs ha d n ot y et co nc lu de d, s at is fie s t he in te nt req ui rem en t fo r § 3 C1 .1.

The m ajor it y 's in te rp re t a t io n of § 3C 1.1 can le ad to an om al ou s res ul ts

. Fo r

in st an ce, un de r th e m ajor it y 's read in g of § 3C 1.1 in te nt req ui rem en t, if Gala vi z

su ccee de d in ki ll in g th e go ve rn m en t's co nf id en ti al in fo rm an t, th e di st ric t co ur t co ul d

no t im po se an obst

ru ct ion of j ust ic e en ha

nc em en t al th ou gh th e go ve rn m en t ev en tu al ly

cal le d th e co nf

id en ti al in fo rm an t as a wit ne ss at Gala vi z's se nt en ci ng he ari ng

. In ot he r

wor ds

, h a d Gala vi z su ccee de d in hi s pl ot

, th e di st ric t co ur t wou ld no t be ab le to

im po se an ob st ru ct io n of

jus ti ce en ha nc em en t ev en th ou gh Gala vi z ob st ru ct ed jus ti ce

in hi s ow n ca se

. Thu s, th e m ajor it y 's in te rp ret at io n of § 3 C 1

. 1 w ou ld di sa ll ow

ap pl ic at io n of an ob st ru ct io n of ju s ti ce en ha nc em en t in cas es whe re th e de fen da nt

m ay ha ve ob st ru ct ed jus ti ce i n h is or h er o wn ca se

.

"We rev ie w th e di st ric t co ur t's co ns tru ct io n of th e ad vi so ry gu id el in es de no vo

an d it s ass oc ia te d fact ua l fin di ng s for clea r erro r." Uni te d St at es v. W is eca rv er

, 64 4

F.3 d 76 4, 77 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ). On th is reco rd an d br ie fin g, I can no t co nc lu de th at th e

di s t r i c t c o u r t m is co ns tru ed th e gu id el in e or cl earl y erre d in it s fact ua l fin di ng s an d

th eref or e res pe ct fu ll y

di ss en t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

fel on -in -p os se ss io n o f a fi rear m ch arg e.

-6

-