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

For the Eig hth Circu it

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

No. 1 4- 19 28

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

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

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.

Elfr ed W il li am

Pet ru k

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __
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 M in ne so ta - St. Pa ul

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Decem

be r 12 , 20 14
Fil ed : M arch 23 , 20 15

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re LOKEN, BRIGHT, and KELLY , Cir cu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __
BRIGHT, Ci rcu it Ju dg e.

I n Ju ne 20 12

, Elfr ed Pet ru k st ol e Trav is Beh ni ng ’s pi ck up tru ck

. Sep arat e
ch arg es were br ou gh t ag ai ns t Pet ru k in Mi nn es ot a st at e co ur t (2 01 2) an d fed eral co ur t (2 01 3) rel at ed to th e th eft

. W hi le in carc erat ed on th e th eft ch arg es , Pet ru k at te m pt ed

to ob ta in fal se ex cu lp at or y st at em en ts

. Pet ru k was co nv ic te d by jury of on e co un t of
carjac ki ng (Co un t 1) in vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. § 21 19 (1 ) an d two co un ts of co rru pt ly

at te m pt in g to ob st ru ct an of

fic ia l pr oc eed in g (Co un ts 2 & 3) in vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C.§ 15 12 (c)( 2)

. The di st ric t co ur t se nt en ced Pet ru k to th ree co nc u r r e n t te rm s of 16 8

mo n t h s in pr is on —t he bo tt om of th e Gui de li ne s ran ge of 16 8- 21 0 m on th s. Pet ru k

ap pe al s, arg u i n g th at th e ev id en ce is in su ffi ci en t to su pp or t hi s co nv ic ti on s. W e

AFFIR M Pet ru k’s co nv ic ti on fo r at te m pt in g to ob st ru ct an of

fic i a l pr oc eed in g fo r

act io ns he to ok to ob ta in fal se st at em en ts aft er hi s or ig in al f e de ral in di ct m en t ha d

be en fil ed (Co un t 3)

. W e rev ers e an d VACATE Pet ru k’s carjac ki ng c o n vi ct io n (Co un t 1) an d hi s rem ai ni ng ob st ru ct io n co nv ic ti on (Co un t 2) ba se d on in su ffi ci en cy

of th e ev id en ce, an d re m an d fo r res en te nc in g. 1

I. Ba ck gr ou nd

A. The ft o f th e Tru ck

In th e earl y m or ni ng ho ur s of Ju ne 18

, 20 12

, Tam m y Beh ni ng (“ Tam

m y ”) an d

he r fam il y were at th ei r ho m e in Sag in aw, Mi nn es ot a, whe n th ey he ard so m eo ne st art

th e 19 89 GMC pi ck up tru ck (th e “ tru ck ”) pa rk ed ou ts id e th at be lo ng ed to Tam m y ’s

y ou ng er so n, Trav is Beh ni ng (“ Beh ni ng ”). Beh ni ng le ft Tam m y ’s ho m e earl ie r th at

ev en in g. Afte r he ari ng th e tru ck st art

, Tam m y ’s ol de r so n, Dus ti n Beh ni ng , jum pe d

i n hi s ve hi cl e an d at te m pt ed wit ho ut su cces s to fo ll ow th e tru ck as it s p e d o f f

. Ta mm y c a l l e d 9- 1- 1 an d rep or te d th e th eft

. Sh e al so co nt act ed Beh ni ng who li ve d

in ne arb y Pro ct or , Min ne so ta , and in fo rm ed hi m th at hi s t ru ck ha d b een st ol en

.

Upo n he ari ng th e ne ws, Beh ni ng be ga n dr iv in g to ward s Tam m y ’s ho m e in hi s

ot he r ve hi cl e. Afte r dr iv in g fo r te n to fif te en m in ut es , Beh ni ng pa ss ed th e tru c k

tra ve li ng th e op po si te way on th e hi gh way

. He tu rn ed hi s ve hi cl e aro un d, fla sh ed hi s

h e a dl ig ht s, an d be ga n fo ll owi ng

. The dr iv er of th e tru ck

, la te r di sc ov ered to b e

Pet ru k, ev en tu al ly pu ll ed ov er an d ex it ed fro m th e dr iv er si de do or

. W he n Beh ni ng

W e h av e juri sd ic ti on pu rs ua nt to 28 U.S.C. § 1 29 1. 1

-2

-a tt em

pt ed to co nf

ro nt Pet ru k, Pet ru k ran ba ck to th e tru ck an d dr ov e of f. Beh ni n g

co nt in ue d t o fo ll ow.

A sh or t ti m e la te r, Pet ru k cro ss ed ov er a sm al l br id g e a nd st op pe d th e tru ck

. Beh ni ng , st il l fo ll owi ng , s t o p pe d ap pr ox im at el y te n feet be hi nd th e tru ck

. Pet ru k

ex it ed th e tru ck an d st art ed “ ch arg in g” to ward Beh ni ng who rem ai ne d in th e dr iv er’s

s eat of hi s ve hi cl e sp eak in g wit h Tam m y on th e ph on e. W he n Pet ru k reac he d t h e
win do w, he de m an de d th at Beh ni ng ge t of f th e ph on e. Befo re Beh ni ng co ul d ro ll up

th e win do w, Pet ru k swu ng a ha m m er to ward s Beh ni ng ’s he ad

. Beh ni ng gr ab be d th e

h a mm er be fo re it hi t hi m an d Pet ru k pu ll ed Beh ni ng ’s arm do wn on to th e win do w

pa ne cau si ng a br ui se

. Pet ru k reg ai ne d co nt ro l of th e ha m m er. As Beh ni ng be ga n to

dr iv e of f, Pet ru k sm as he d th e rear dr iv er si de win do w of Beh ni ng ’s ve hi cl e wit h th e

ha m m er. Pet ru k br ie fly fo ll owe d Beh ni ng i n t h e tru ck be fo re tu rn in g th e op po si te

di rec t i o n

. B eh ni ng th en at te m pt ed to fo ll ow Pet ru k bu t ev en tu al ly l os t si gh t of th e

tru ck

.

Sh or tl y th erea fte r, la w en fo rcem en t lo cat ed th e tru ck ab an do ne d in a ne a r b y
di tc h

. B e h n i n g su bs eq ue nt ly id en ti fie d Pet ru k fro m a ph ot o li ne -u p. A sa m pl e of

Pet ru k’s DNA m at ch ed DNA fo un d on th e st eeri ng whe el of th e tru ck an d a ha m m er

fo un d i ns id e th e tr uc k.

B. Obs tru ct io n

App ro xi m at el y si x m on th s la te r in Decem be r 20 12

, Pet ru k was in carc erat ed at

th e Sai nt Lou is Co un ty Ja il in Dul ut h, Mi nn es ot a, on st at e ch arg es rel at in g to th e th eft

of th e tru ck

. No fed eral ch arg es ha d y et be en fil ed

. W hi le in carc erat ed

, Pet ru k m ad e

va rio us ph on e ca l l s to hi s fri en d Sara Je an Pet ers on (“ Pet ers on ”) in an at te m pt to

se cu re fa ls e al ib i wi tn es se s. Sp eci fic al ly, on Decem be r 18

, 20 12 , Pet ru k i ns tru ct ed

Pet ers on to arra ng e fo r a wom an na m ed “ Dawn” to si gn a st at em en t th at sh e was wit h

Pet ru k on th e ni gh t th e tru ck wa s s t o l e n

. On Decem be r 26

, 20 12

, Pet ru k ag ai n

-3

-di sc us se d th e ne ed fo r al ib i st at em en ts

. Pet ru k st at ed th at he wou ld “ [j] us t ne ed ‘em

in co ur t to m or ro w, or on Fri da y .” Dur in g a su bs eq ue nt co nv ers at io n th at da y , Pet ru k

be rat ed Pet ers on for no t p ro vi di ng th e fal se st at em en ts to hi s l awy er.

Pet ru k’s or ig in al fed eral in di ct m en t was fil ed in Ju ne 20 13

. In la te Octo be r

20 13

, Pet ers on rece iv ed two le tt ers fro m Pet ru k whi le he was in carc erat ed awai ti ng

tri al on fed eral ch arg es

. In th e le tt ers , Pet ru k as ke d Pet ers on to fin d a pe rs on to pl ay

“ Sam ,” a fi ct io na l ch arac te r who wou ld ad m it to th e th eft of t he tru ck in a reco rd ed

te le ph on e co nv ers at io n us in g a sc rip t th at Pet ru k ha d writ te n. Pet ru k th en m ad e two

cal ls to Pet ers on on Nov em be r 3, 20 13

, as ki ng if “ Sam ” was read y to m ak e th e cal l.

Pet ers on te st ifi ed th at sh e ne ve r ob ta in ed an y fal se st at em en ts fo r Pet ru k rel at ed to

th e th eft of t he tru ck

.

C. Pro ceed in gs Bel ow

In Nov e mb e r 20 13

, a gr an d jury ret ur ne d a su pe rs ed in g in di ct m en t ch arg in g

Pet ru k wit h on e co un t of carjac ki ng (Co un t 1) in vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. § 21 19 (1 ) as
well as two co un ts of co rru pt ly at te m pt in g to ob st ru ct an o f

f i c i al pr oc eed in g in

vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. § 15 12 (c)( 2) —t he fi r s t o b s t ru ct io n ch arg e (Co un t 2) fo r hi s

at te m pt s to se cu re fal se al ib i wit ne ss es in Decemb e r 2 0 12 pr io r to fed eral ch arg es
be in g fil ed

, an d th e se co nd (Co un t 3) fo r hi s at te m pt to ob ta in a fal se co nf

es si on aft er

th e f e de ral pr os ecu ti on was in it ia te d. Pri or to tri al

, Pet ru k m ov ed to di sm is s th e carjac ki ng ch arg e un de r Fed

. R. Cri m

. P. 12 (b )(3 )(B)

, wh i c h g o v e rn s pr et ria l

de fen se s, ob

jecti on s, an d req ue st s ba se d on a de fect in th e in di ct m en t, on th e gr ou nd

t ha t th e in di ct m en t di d no t al le ge fact s su ffi ci en t to es ta bl is h a carjac ki ng un de r 1 8

U.S.C. § 21 19

. The m ag is tra te jud ge reco m m en de d de ni al of th e m ot io n an d th e
di st ric t ad op te d t ha t re co m m en da ti on . A tria l fo ll owe d.

At th e cl os e of th e Gov ern m en t’s cas e, Pet ru k m ov ed fo r a jud gm en t of

acq ui tt al on al l co un ts

. The di st ric t co ur t de ni ed th e m ot io n. The jury su bs eq ue nt ly

-4

-co nv ic te d Pet r u k o n al l co un ts in th e su pe rs ed in g in di ct m en t. The di st ric t co ur t

se nt en ced Pet ru k to th r e e c o nc ur ren t te rm s of 16 8 m on th s in pr is on on each co un t.

Pet ru k fil ed a ti m el y no ti ce of ap pe al

, arg ui ng th at th e e v i de nc e is in su ffi ci en t to

su pp or t h is co nv ic ti on s.

W e n ow as se ss Pet ru k’s s uf fic ie nc y arg um en ts in tu rn

.

II

. Dis cus si on

A. Carjac ki ng un de r 18 U.S.C. § 2 11 9 (C ou nt 1)

Pet ru k fir st arg ue s th at th e ev id e n c e is in su ffi ci en t to su pp or t hi s carjac ki ng

co nv ic ti on

. “ W e rev ie w t he su ffi ci en cy of th e e vi de nc e in th e li gh t m os t fav or ab le

to th e ve rd ic t an d ov ert ur n [th e co nv ic ti on ] on ly if no reas on ab le jury co ul d fin d th at

th e el em en ts of th e of

fen se h a v e b een pr ov en be y on d a reas on ab le do ub t.” Uni te d

St at es v. Boo ker

, 57 6 F.3 d 50 6, 51 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ). “ W he n a su ffi ci en cy arg um en t

hi ng es on th e in te rp ret at io n of a st at ut e, we rev ie w th e di st ric t c o ur t’s st at ut or y

in te rp ret at io n de no vo .” Uni te d St at es v. Gen tr y , 55 5 F.3 d 65 9, 66 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ).

“ W e of co ur se as su m e th at Co ng res s in te nd ed to ad op t th e pl ai n m ean in g or co m m on

un de rs ta nd in g of th e wor ds us ed in a st at ut e.” Uni te d St at es v. Reed

, 66 8 F.3d 97 8,

98 2 (8 th Cir . 20 12 ).

In as se ss in g th e su ffi ci en cy of th e ev id en ce, we fir st lo ok to th e la ng ua ge of th e

ap pl ic ab le cri m in al st at ut e to de te rm in e wha t th e Gov ern m en t was req ui red to pr ov e
be y on d a reas on ab le do ub t in or de r to co nv ic t Pet ru k. It is a cri m e un de r th e carjac ki ng st at ut e to , “ wit h t he in te nt to cau se de at h o r se rio us bo di ly harm tak e[] a

m ot or ve hi cl e th at ha s be en tra ns po rte d, sh ip pe d, or rece iv ed in in te rs ta te or fo rei gn

co m m e r c e f r o m th e pe rs on or pr es en ce of an ot he r by fo rce an d vi ol en ce or by

in ti m id at io n.” 18 U.S.C. § 2 11 9. In ord er t o o bt ai n a co nv ic ti on un de r th is st at ut e,

we ha ve sa id th at “ th e go ve rn m en t m us t pr ov e th ree ba si c el em en ts : (1 ) th e de fen da nt

-5

-to ok or at te m pt ed to ta ke a m ot or ve hi cl e fro m th e pe rs on or pr es en ce of an ot he r by

fo rce an d vi ol en ce or by in ti m id at io n; (2 ) th e de fen da nt act ed wit h th e in te nt to cau se
de at h or se rio us bo di ly ha rm ; an d (3 ) th e m ot o r v e h i c l e in vo lv ed ha s be en

tra ns po rte d, s hi pp ed , or re cei ve d i n i nt ers ta te or f or ei gn co m

m erce .” Uni te d S ta te s

v. W ri gh t , 2 46 F.3 d 11 23 , 1 12 6 (8 th Ci r. 20 01 ). The ju ry in st ru ct io ns gi ve n at tri al

pr op erl y refl ect ed th e req ui si te ele m en ts of t he cri m e.

On ap pe al

, P et ru k arg ue s th at th e ev id en ce is in su ffi ci en t wit h res pe ct to th e

fir st an d s eco nd ele m en ts of th e cri m e. Pet ru k co nt en ds th at be cau se th e tru ck was

un oc cu pi ed whe n he to ok it

, th e Gov er n men t d id no t pr ov e be y on d a reas on ab le

do ub t th at th e “ ta k[ in g]” un de r 18 U.S.C. § 2 11 9 was “ fro m th e pe rs on or pr es en ce

of an ot he r” or acco m

pl is he d “ by fo rce an d vi ol en ce or by in ti m id at io n.” Pet ru k al so

arg ue s t ha t th e Gov ern m en t fail ed to pro ve th at he act ed wit h t he req ui si te in te nt to

cau se de at h o r se rio us bo di ly harm at t he m om en t h e to ok th e tr uc k.

In co nt ras t, t he Gov ern m en t’s the or y at tri al was th at th e carjac ki ng oc cu rred

no t whe n Pet ru k i n i ti al ly st ol e th e tru ck

, bu t whe n he as sa ul te d Beh ni ng on th e
sh ou ld er of th e ro ad

. W hi le th e Gov ern m en t ad m it s th at Pet ru k’s th eft co ns ti tu te d th e

in it ia l “ ta k[ in g]” of th e tru ck

, it arg ue s th at a reas on ab le jury co ul d al so co nc lu de th at

a se co nd “ ta k[ in g]” oc cu

rr ed w he n Petru k as sa ul te d Beh ni ng

. Thi s se co nd “ ta k[ in g],”

th e Gov ern m en t arg ue s, co in ci de d wit h Pet ru k’s us e of fo rce an d in te n t t o c a u se

se rio us bo di ly ha rm as req ui red by 18 U.S.C. § 21 19

. Fu nd am en ta l l y, t h e n , t he

qu es ti on of whe th er th e ev id en ce was su ffi ci en t to co nv ic t Pet ru k of carjac ki ng tu rn s

on whet he r a s eco nd “ ta k[ in g]” o f th e tr uc k o ccu rred du rin g t he roa ds id e as sa ul t.

W e be gi n wit h th e de fin it io n of “ ta ki ng ,” whi ch “ is a co m m on la w te rm of art

de riv ed fro m th e la w of ro bb ery an d la rcen y .” Uni te d St at es v. Fig ue ro a- Ca rt ag en a , 61 2 F.3 d 69

, 78 (1 st Ci r

. 2 0 1 0 )

. At co m m on la w, a “ ta ki ng ” refe rred to th e act of

se cu rin g do m in io n ov er a pa rti cu la r th in g. Id

. (ci ti ng 3 Ch arl es E. Torc ia

, W ha rt on ’s

Cr imi na l La w § 35 7 (1 5t h ed

. 2 0 0 9 ) ( “T he re is a cap ti on whe n th e de fen da nt ta ke s

-6

-po ss es si on

. He ta ke s po ss es si o n w h e n he ex erci se s do m in io n an d co nt ro l ov er th e

pr op ert y .”)). Thu s, fo r th e pu rp os es of th e carjac ki n g st at ut e, we ha ve sa id th at a

“ ta ki ng ” is “ ‘the acq ui si ti on by th e ro bb er of po ss es si on , do m in io n or co nt ro l of th e

pr op ert y fo r so m e pe rio d of ti m e.’” W ri gh t

, 24 6 F.3 d at 11 26 (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es

v. DeLa Co rt e , 11 3 F .3d 15 4, 1 56 (9t h C ir. 1 99 7) ).

App lying th is de fin it io n to th e fact s at ha nd

, a jury co ul d reas on ab ly co nc lu de

th at Pet ru k’s in it ia l th eft of th e tru ck co ns ti tu te d a “ ta k[ in g]” un de r 18 U.S.C. § 21 19

be cau se he acq ui red “ po ss es si on , do m in io n or co nt ro l” of th e tru ck

. Se e W ri gh t

, 24 6

F.3 d at 11 26

. H o w e v e r , th e sa m e can no t be sa id of th e al te rcat io n be twee n Pet ru k

an d Beh ni ng on th e s h o u l d e r of th e ro ad

. Bec au se Pet ru k su ccee de d in in it ia ll y

“ ta k[ in g]” th e tru ck

, Pet ru k m us t ha ve lo st or rel in qu is he d hi s “ po ss es si on , do m in io n

or co nt ro l” of th e tru ck an d reg ai ne d it i n or de r fo r a se co nd “ ta k[ in g]” to ha ve

oc cu rred

. Bu t t h e f

a ct s do no t pe rm it su ch a co nc lu si on

. Afte r Pet ru k acq ui red

po ss es si on of th e tru ck

, he dr ov e it un in hi bi te d fo r ap pr ox i matel y te n to fif te en

m in ut es

. As Beh ni ng be ga n fo ll owi ng , Pet ru k m ai nt ai ne d hi s po ss es si on an d co nt ro l

ov er th e tru ck

. Dur in g th e ro ad si de al te rcat io n, Pet ru k rem ai ne d in po ss es si on of th e

t r uc k, an d at no po in t du rin g th e al te rcat io n wit h Beh ni ng di d Pet ru k ced e

“ po ss es si on , do m in io n or co nt ro l.” Thu s, a se co nd “ ta k[ in g]” di d no t o c c u r w h en

Pet ru k as sa ul te d Beh ni ng wit h th e ha m m er an d ret ur ne d to th e tru ck be cau se Pet ru k’s

act io ns res ul te d in ret ai ni ng co nt ro l of th e tru ck rat he r th an “ acq ui [ri ng ]” co nt ro l. Se e

W ri gh t

, 24 6 F.3d at 11 26 (d efi ni ng a “ ta ki ng ” as “ th e ac qu is it io n

. . . of po ss es si on , do m in io n or co nt ro l of th e pr op ert y ” (em ph as is ad de d) ). Acco rd in gl y , no reas on ab le
jury co ul d co nc lu de th at a se c o nd “ ta k[ in g]” of th e tru ck oc cu rred aft er Pet ru k

in it ia ll y to ok th e u no ccu pi ed tru ck

.

W e reject th e Gov ern m en t’s al te rn at iv e co nt en ti on th at Pet ru k’s in it ia l ta ki ng

co nt in ue d un ti l th e tru ck was br ou gh t to a sa fe ha ve n. In Hol lo wa y v. Uni te d St at es , th e Su pr em e Co u r t n o t ed th at th e carjac ki ng st at ut e’s “ men s re a co m po ne nt

. . .

m od ifi es th e act of ‘tak [in g]’ ” an d th us “ di r e c t s th e fact fin de r’s at te nt io n to th e

-7

-de fen da nt ’s st at e of m in d at th e pr eci se m om en t he de m an de d or to ok co nt ro l ov er th e

car ‘by fo rce an d vi ol en ce or by i nt i mi d a t i o n

. ’” 52 6 U.S. 1 , 8 (1 99 9) (al te rat io n in

or ig in al ); se e Jo ne s v. St

. Pau l Co s., In c. , 49 5 F.3d 88 8, 89 3 (8t h Cir. 20 07 ) (n ot in g

th at “ fed eral co ur ts are bo un d by th e Su pr em e Co ur t’s co ns id ere d di ct a al m os t as

fir m ly as by th e Co ur t’s o u tri gh t ho ld in gs ” (ci ta ti on om it te d) (in te rn al qu ot at io n

m ark s o m it te d) ). By

refe ren ci ng th e “ pr eci se m om en t” th at th e ve hi cl e was sei zed

, th e Co ur t ap pe ars to en do rs e a na rro w un de rs ta nd in g of a “ ta k[ in g],” whi ch is

co ns is te nt wit h th e co m

m on la w un de rs ta nd in g th at “ a ta ki ng was co m pl et e on ce th e
de fen da nt ha d se cu red in it ia l co nt ro l o ve r th e pr op ert y in qu es ti on .” Fig ue ro aCa rt ag en a , 61 2 F.3 d at 78 ; se e al so 3 Tor c i a , s u

p r a , § 35 7 (ex pl ai ni ng th at at

co m m on la w, th e el em en t of “ ta ki ng ” was di st in ct fro m “ carr y in g away, ” whi ch co ul d

no t o ccu r un ti l af

te r th e “ ta ki ng ” h ad be en co m pl et ed ).

Und et err e d

, t h e Gov ern m en t in si st s th at ou r de ci si on in W ri gh t

, 24 6 F.3 d at

11 26 -2 8, dem on st rat es th at a carjac ki ng can oc cu r wit hi n th e m ean in g of 18 U.S.C.
§ 21 19 whe n th e p erp et rat or fen ds off th e v ic ti m ’s att em

pt s t o reg ai n co nt ro l of th e

ve hi cl e aft er th e ve hi cl e was in it ia ll y ta ke n. W e di sa gr ee. In co nc lu di ng th at th e

ev id en ce was su ffi ci en t to su pp or t th e carjac ki ng co nv ic t i o n, th e co ur t no te d in

W ri gh t th at th e jury was free to co nc lu de th at th e “ ta k[ in g]” of th e ve hi cl e co in ci de d

i n t i me w i t h th e de fen da nt ’s u se of fo rce (s tri ki ng th e va le t wit h th e ve hi cl e) in th e

pr es en ce of a pe rs on (th e va le t) as a m ean s of se cu rin g d o mi n i o n ov er th e ve hi cl e.

Id

. a t 1 1 2 7 -2 8. Thu s, W ri gh t do es no t st an d fo r th e pr op os it io n art ic ul at ed by th e

Gov ern m en t. Afte r al l, if a pe rp et rat or ’s “ ta k[ in g]” co u ld pr eced e hi s us e of fo rce,
vi ol en ce, or in ti m id at io n, th en th e “ ta k[ in g]” wou ld no t be a c c o m pl is he d by th os e

m ean s, whic h is req ui red un de r th e pl ai n lan gu ag e of th e carjac ki ng st at ut e. Se e 18

U.S.C. § 21 19 (req ui rin g th at th e pe rp et rat or “ ta ke [] a m ot or ve hi cl e

. . . by fo rce an d

vi ol en ce o r by int im id at io n” (em ph as is ad de d) ).

In su m , th e ev id en ce is in su ffi ci en t to su pp or t th e Gov ern m en t’s th eo ry at tri al

th at th e carjac ki ng oc cu rred at th e ti m e Pet ru k as sa ul te d Beh ni ng be cau se Pet ru k di d

-8

-no t “ ta ke []” t he tru ck at th at ti m e. Add it io na ll y , t he jury co ul d no t ha ve co nc lu de d

t h a t th e carjac ki ng oc cu rred whe n Pet ru k in it ia ll y to ok th e tru ck fro m Tam m y ’s

pr op ert y be cau se , as th e Gov ern m en t co nc ed es , th at “ ta k[ i n g]” was no t fro m a

“ pe rs on ” or in th e “ pr es en ce of an ot he r” an d was no t a c c o m pl is he d by m ean s of

“fo r ce an d vi ol en ce or by in ti m id at io n.” Se e 18 U.S.C. § 21 19

. Acco rd in g l y, w e

rev ers e an d va cat e Pet ru k’s carjac ki ng co nv ic ti on (Co un t 1) un de r 18 U.S.C. § 21 19

.

B. Att em

p t i n g to Obs tru ct an Offi ci al Pro ceed in g un de r 18 U.S.C. § 1 51 2( c)(2 ) (Co un ts 2 & 3)

P e tru k ne xt arg ue s th at th e ev id en ce is in su ffi ci en t to co nv ic t hi m o f e i t h e r

co un t of at te m

pt in g to ob st ru ct an of

fic ia l pr oc eed in g i n v i o l a t io n of 18 U.S.C. §

15 12 (c)( 2)

, whi ch m ak es it a cri m e to co rru pt ly “ ob st ru ct [], in flu en ce[], or im pe de []

an y of fic ia l pro ceed in g, or atte m pt [] to do so .” An “ of

fic ia l p ro ceed in g” in cl ud es a

pr oc eed in g be fo re a fed eral jud ge , co ur t, or gr an d jury, bu t no t a st at e p r o c e ed in g.

Se e 18 U.S.C. § 15 15 (a)( 1) (A). In ad di ti on , al th ou gh th e pr oc eed in g ob st ru ct ed m us t

be an “ of fic ia l pr oc eed in g” as de fin ed by § 15 15 (a)( 1) (A), th e go ve rn m en t ne ed no t

pr ov e th at th e de fen da nt was aware th at th e pr oc eed in g was fed eral in na tu re. Se e 18

U.S.C. § 15 12 (g )(1 ). The of fic ia l pr oc eed in g “ ne ed no t be pe nd in g or ab ou t t o be

in st it ut ed at t he ti m e o f th e o ffen se .” 18 U.S.C. § 1 51 2( f)(1 ).

i. Acti on s Du ri ng

Pend en cy o

f Mi nn es ot a S ta te Ch ar

ge s (C ou nt

2)

The jury co nv ic te d Pet ru k of Co u nt 2 of th e su pe rs ed in g in di ct m en t, whi ch

ch arg ed hi m wit h at te m

pt in g to ob st ru ct an of

fic ia l pr oc eed in g by se ek in g to ob ta in

st at em en ts fro m

fal se ali bi wit ne ss es whi le in carc erat ed on st at e ch arg es rel at in g t o

th e th eft of th e tru ck

. W it h res pe ct to th is co nv ic ti on , Pet ru k arg ue s th at th e ev id en ce

was in su ffi ci en t to pr ov e hi s in te nt to im pa ir an “ of

fic ia l pr oc eed in g.” Pet ru k rel ie s

pr im ari ly on th e Su pr em e Co ur t’s de ci si on s in Uni te d St at es v. Agu il ar , 51 5 U.S. 59 3
(1 99 5)

, an d Art hu r And er se n, LLP v. Uni te d St at es , 54 4 U.S. 69 6 (2 00 5)

, in arg ui ng

-9

-th at th e Gov ern m en t was req ui red to pr ov e th at he co nt em pl at ed a pa rti cu la r,

fo res eeab le fed eral pr oc eed in g a t t he ti m e he en ga ge d in hi s ob st ru ct iv e co nd uc t in

or de r to co nv ic t hi m un de r 18 U.S.C. § 15 12 (c)( 2)

. W e ha ve ne ve r de ci de d whe th er

th e ne xu s req ui rem en t art ic ul at ed in Agu il ar an d Art h u r And er se n ap pl ie s to §

15 12 (c)( 2)

.

At is su e in Ag ui la r was th e cat ch al l pr ov is io n of a jury ta m pe rin g st at ut e,
whi ch m ak es it a c r i m e to “ ‘corru pt ly or by th reat s or fo rce, or by an y th reat en in g
le tt er or co m

m un ic at io n, in flu en ce[], ob st ru ct [], or im pe de [], or en de a v o r [ ] to

in flu en ce, ob st ru ct , o r im pe de , t he du e ad m in is tra ti on of jus ti ce.’” 51 5 U.S. a t 59 8
(q uo ti ng 18 U.S.C. § 15 03 ). The Co ur t co ns tru ed th e pr ov is io n as req ui rin g th e
ch arg ed co nd uc t to “ ha ve a rel at io ns hi p in ti m e, cau sa ti on , or lo gi c wit h th e jud ic ia l

pr oc eed in gs .” Id

. at 59 9. To sa ti sf y th is req ui rem en t, th e de fen da nt ’s co nd uc t m us t

ha ve th e “ ‘nat ur al an d p ro ba bl e effe ct ’ of in te rfer in g with th e du e ad m in is tra ti on of
jus ti ce.” Id

. (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. W oo d

, 6 F.3 d 69 2, 69 5 (1 0t h Ci r. 19 93 )). Thi s

ne xu s requ ire m en t, t he Co ur t s ta te d, en su res a cert ai n d eg ree o f “ m et es an d bo un ds

on th e v ery br oa d l an gu ag e o f th e cat ch al l p ro vi si on .” Id

.

In Art hu r And

er se n , 54 4 U.S. at 70 7- 08

, th e Co ur t ex te nd ed th e ne xu s

req ui rem en t to cert ai n pr ov is io ns o f 18 U.S.C. § 15 12 whi ch m ak e it a cri m e to

“ kn owi ng ly us e[] in ti m id at io n, th reat en [], or co rru pt ly pe rs ua de [] an ot he r pe rs on

. . . wit h in te nt to

. . . c a u s e ” t h at pe rs on to “ wit hh ol d” do cu m en ts fro m , or “ al te r”

do cu m en ts fo r us e in

, an “ of fic ia l pr oc eed in g.” 18 U.S.C. §§ 15 12 (b )(2 )(A) an d (B).

The Co ur t reas on ed th at it is “ on e th in g to sa y th at a pr oc eed in g ‘need no t be pe nd in g

or ab ou t to be in st it ut ed at th e ti m e of th e of fen se ,’ an d qu it e an o t h e r t o s a y a

pr oc eed in g nee d no t even be fo res een .” Art hu r And er se n , 54 4 U.S. at 70 7- 08

. The

Co ur t co nc lu de d th at a de fen da nt can no t be co nv ic te d un de r §§ 15 12 (b ) ( 2) (A) an d
(B) un le ss he or sh e “ co nt em pl at e[es ]” a “ pa rti cu la r of fic ia l pr oc eed in g” in whi ch th e
do cu m en ts at i ss ue m ig ht be m at eri al

. Id

. at 7 08

.

-1 0-Rel y in g on Agu i la r an d Art hu r And er se n , m an y of ou r si st er ci rcu it s ha ve

ap pl ie d th e ne xu s req ui rem en t to 18 U.S.C. § 15 12 (c)( 2)

. Se e, e.g

. , Uni te d St at es v. Tyl er , 73 2 F.3 d 24 1, 24 9- 50 (3 d Ci r. 20 13 ) (ap pl y in g th e ne xu s req ui rem en t to “ an y

p r o se cu ti on br ou gh t un de r a § 15 12 pr ov is io n ch arg in g ob st ru ct io n of jus ti c e

in vo lv in g an ‘offi ci al pr o c e e d i n g ’”); Uni te d St at es v. Ben ne tt

, 66 4 F.3 d 99 7, 10 13
(5 th Ci r. 20 11 ) (ap pl y in g ne xu s req ui rem en t to § 15 12 (c)( 2) )

, va ca te d on ot he r

gr ou nd s by

__ U.S.

__ , 13 3 S. Ct

. 71 (2 01 2) ; Uni te d St at es v. Fri sk e , 64 0 F.3 d 12 88

, 12 92 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 11 ) (s am e); Uni te d St at es v. Phi ll ip s , 58 3 F.3 d 12 61

, 12 63 -6 4 (1 0t h

Ci r. 20 09 ) (s am e); Uni te d St at es v. Ca rs on , 56 0 F.3 d 56 6, 58 4 ( 6 t h C i r. 20 09 )
(as su m in g ar

gu en do th at th e ne xu s req ui re men t ap pl ie s to § 15 12 (c)( 2) ); Uni te d

St at es v. Reic h , 4 79 F.3 d 17 9, 1 86 (2d Cir . 20 07 ) (ap pl y in g ne xu s req ui rem en t to §

15 12 (c)( 2) ). Fu rth er, we are aware of no ci rcu it th at ha s co ns id ered an d reject ed

ap pl ic at io n o f th e ne xu s requ ire m en t to § 1 51 2( c)(2 ). Co ns id eri ng th e si m il ari ty of

st at ut or y la ng ua ge be twee n § 15 12 (c)( 2) an d th e cat ch al l pr ov is io n at is su e in
Agu il ar , th e ap pl ic at io n of th e ne xu s req ui rem en t in Art hu r And er se n t o an ot he r

pr ov is io n of § 15 12

, a n d o t h e r ci rcu it s’ ap pl ic at io n of th e ne xu s req ui rem en t to §

15 12 (c)( 2)

, we ho ld th at § 15 12 (c)( 2) in co rp or at es th e ne xu s req ui rem en t se t fo rth in
Agu il ar an d Art hu r And er se n

. In ot he r wor ds

, we ho ld th at a su cces sf ul pr os ecu ti on

un de r § 15 12 (c)( 2) r e q u i r e s pr oo f be y on d a reas on ab le do ub t th at th e de fen da nt

c o n t e m pl at ed a pa rti cu la r, fo res eeab le pr oc eed in g, an d th at th e co nt em pl at e d

pr oc eed in g co ns ti tu te d an “ of fic ia l pr oc eed i n g , ” w hi ch is de fin ed un de r § 15 15 (a)( 1) (A) to in cl ud e a pr oc eed in g be fo re a fed eral jud ge , co ur t, or gr an d jury,

bu t n ot a st at e p ro ceed in g. 2

It’s wor th no ti ng th at th e di st ric t co ur t pr op erl y i n s t r u ct ed th e jury th at th e 2

Gov ern m en t was req ui red to pr ov e be y on d a reas on ab le do ub t a su ffi ci en t ne xu s be twee n an “ of

fic ia l pr oc eed in g” an d Pet ru k’s ob st ru ct iv e co nd uc t in or de r to co nv ic t
Pet ru k un de r 18 U.S.C. § 15 12 (c)( 2)

. The di st ric t co ur t in st ru ct ed th e jury th at “ [t]he
de fen da nt m

us t

. . . co nt em

pl at e so m e pa rti c u l a r o f

f ic ia l pr oc eed in g in whi ch th e
te st im on y , reco rd , do cu m en t, o r ot he r ob ject m ig ht be m at eri al .”

-1 1-Tu rn in g to th e fact s pr es en te d at tri al

, we co nc lu de th at th e ev id en c e i s

in su ffi ci en t to co nv ic t Petru k of Co un t 2 of t he fed eral in di ct m en t fo r at te m pt in g to

se cu re st at em en ts fro m fal se al ib i wit ne ss es whi le in carc erat ed on st at e ch arg es

. The

tra ns c r i p t s of th e te le ph on e cal ls be twee n Pet ru k an d Pet ers on in Decem be r 20 12

sh o w t h a t P et ru k’s effo rts were di rect ed at se cu rin g fal se st at em en ts to us e in hi s

up co m in g pr oc eed in gs in Mi nn es ot a st a t e c ou rt. On Decem be r 18

, 20 12

, Pet ru k

as ke d Pet ers on to se cu re al ib i st at em en t s a n d t ol d he r he wou ld ne ed co pi es of th e

st at em en ts w i t h in th e week

. On Decem be r 26

, 20 12

, Pet ru k st at ed th at he wou ld

“ ne ed [th e st at em en ts ] in co ur t to m or ro w, o r on Fri da y .” In m ak in g t hi s st at em en t,

Pet ru k refe rred on ly to hi s pe nd in g st at e co ur t pr oc eed in gs

. His fed eral pr os ecu ti on

was no t i ni ti at ed un ti l J un e 2 01 3.

The fact s of th is cas e are an al og ou s t o t ho se in Uni te d S ta te s v. S ha ver s , 69 3

F.3 d 36 3, 37 9- 81 (3 d Ci r

. 2 0 1 2 )

, va ca te d on ot he r gr ou nd s by Sh av er

s v. Uni te d

St at es ,

__ U.S.

__ , 13 3 S

. C t

. 2 8 7 7 (2 01 3)

. At is su e in Sh av er s was whe th er th e

ev id en ce was su ffi ci en t to co nv ic t th e de fen da nt s of wit ne ss tam

pe rin g i n v io la ti on

of 18 U.S.C. § 1 51 2( b) (1 ). Id

. at 3 77 . The Th ird Cir cu it de te rm in ed th at th e ne xu s

r e q u i rem en t art ic ul at ed in Art hu r And er se n ex te nd ed to a pr os ecu ti on un de r § 15 12 (b )(1 ) su ch th at th e Gov ern m en t was r e q u i r e d to pr ov e “ th at th e de fen da nt

co nt em pl at ed a pa rti cu la r ‘offi ci al pro ceed in g’ th at was fo res eeab le whe n he or she

en ga ge d in th e pr o s c rib ed co nd uc t.” Id

. at 37 8. The co ur t th en va cat ed th e
de fen da nt s’ co nv ic ti on s un de r § 15 12 (b )(1 ) on th e gr ou nd th at te le ph on e tra ns cri pt s

in tro du ced at tri al m ad e cl ear th at th e de fen da nt s’ “ effo rts were di rect ed at pr ev en ti ng

po te nt ia l wit n e s s e s

. . . fro m te st ifyin g at th ei r up co m in g he ari ng in Pen ns y lv an ia

st at e co ur t” an d th at th e r e w a s “ no ev id en ce th at th ey co nt em pl at ed an y ot he r

pr oc eed in g.” Id

. at 3 79 -8 1.

Pet ru k’s co nd uc t in Decem be r 20 12

, li ke th e co nd uc t at is su e in Sh av er s , was

un eq ui vo cal ly di rect ed at ob st ru ct in g Mi nn es ot a st at e co ur t pr oc eed in gs an d no t th e
fed eral pr oc eed in gs whi ch he w a s e v e n t u al ly su bjec te d to in 20 13

. Mo reo ve r, th e

-1 2-Gov ern m en t fai le d to pr od uc e an y ev id en ce th at Pet ru k was un de r fed eral

in ve st ig at io n in Decem

be r 20 12

, m

uc h le ss th at Pet ru k was aware of su ch

in ve st ig at io n at th at ti m e. The p r o c e e d i n g in Mi nn es ot a st at e co ur t was th e on ly

fo res eeab le pr oc eed in g P e t r u k co nt em pl at ed in Decem

be r 20 12

. The refo re, no

rat io na l tri er o f f

a c t co ul d co nc lu de th at in at te m pt in g to se cu re fal se st at em en ts in

Decem be r 20 12

, Pet ru k co nt em

pl at ed a pa rti cu la r, fo res eeab le “ of fic ia l pr oc eed in g,”

as de fin ed un de r 18 U.S.C. § 15 15 (a)( 1) (A). Acco rd in gl y, w e va cat e Pet ru k’s

co nv ic ti on (Co un t 2) fo r at te m pt in g to ob st ru ct an of

fic ia l pr oc eed in g un de r 18
U.S.C. § 1 51 2( c)(2 ).

ii

. Acti on s Du ri ng

Pend en cy o

f Fed er al Ch ar ge s (C ou nt

3)

Pet ru k al so ch al le ng es th e su ffi ci en cy of th e ev id en ce wit h res pe ct to hi s th ird

an d fin al co nv ic ti on fo r at te m pt in g to ob st ru ct an of

fic ia l pr oc eed in g in vi ol at io n of

18 U.S.C. § 15 12 (c)( 2) fo r hi s at te m pt s to ob ta in fa l s e s t a te m en ts in th e fo rm of a

co nf es si on du rin g th e pe nd en cy of hi s fed eral ch arg es

. Pet ru k do es no t arg ue th at th is

co nv ic ti on sh ou ld be va cat ed fo r la ck of a su ffi ci en t ne xu s be twee n hi s co nd uc t an d

an “ of fic ia l pr oc eed in g.” Rat he r, he arg ue s th at § 1 5 1 2 ( c ) is li m it ed to ob st ru ct io n

in vo lv in g do cu m en ts or ph y si cal ev id en ce— co n d u c t t ha t he di d no t en ga ge in

. As

no te d, “ [w]hen a su ffi ci en cy arg um en t hi ng es on th e in te rp ret at io n of a st at u te

, we

rev ie w th e di st ric t co ur t’s st at ut or y in te rp ret at io n de no vo .” Gen tr y , 55 5 F.3 d at 66 4.

Sect io n 1 51 2( c) p ro vi de s:

[w]hoe ve r co rru pt ly—

(1 ) al te rs , de st ro ys , m

ut il at es , or co nc eal s a reco rd

, do cu m en t, or ot he r ob

ject, or at te m

pt s to do so , wit h th e in te nt to im

pa ir th e ob

ject’s in te gr it y or av ai la bi li ty fo r us e in an off ic ia l p ro ceed in g; or

-1 3-(2 ) ot he rwis e ob st ru ct s, in flu en ces , or im pe de s an y of

fic ia l

pr oc eed in g, o r at te m

pt s t o d o s o,

sh al l be fin ed un de r th is ti tl e or im pr is on ed no t m or e th an 20 y e ars , o r bo th

.

18 U.S.C. § 15 12 (c). W hi le we ack no wled ge th at § 15 12 (c)( 1) is li m it ed to

ob st ru ct io n rel at in g to “ a reco rd , d oc um en t, or ot he r ob ject,” § 15 12 (c)( 2) is no t so

li m it ed

. Sect io n 15 12 (c)( 2) gi ve s de fen da nt s fai r warn in g in pl ai n l a n g u a g e th at a
cri m e wil l oc cu r in a di ffer en t (“ ot he rwis e”) m an ne r co m pa red to § 15 12 (c)( 1) if th e
de fen da nt “ ob st ru ct s, in flu en ces , or im pe de s an y of

fic ia l pr oc eed in g” wit ho ut reg ard

to whe th er th e act io n rel at es to do cu m en ts or reco rd s. Se e W eb s t e r ’s New W or ld

Co ll eg e Dict io na ry 10 21 (4 th ed

. 20 07 ) (d efi ni ng “ ot he rwis e” as “ in an ot he r m an ne r;
di ffer en tl y ”). Thu s, § 15 12 (c)( 2) “ op erat es as a cat c h -al l to co ve r ot he rwis e
ob st ru ct iv e be ha vi or th at m ig ht no t co ns ti tu te a m or e sp eci fic of fen se li ke do cu m en t

de st ru ct io n, whi c h i s li st ed in (c)( 1) .” Uni te d St at es v. Vol pe nd es to , 7 46 F.3 d 27 3,

28 6 (7 th Ci r. 20 14 ) (ci t a t i o n o m it te d) (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d) ; se e al so Agu il ar , 5 15 U.S. a t 59 8 (in t e r p r e t in g si m il ar la ng ua ge in 18 U.S.C. § 15 03 (a) as a

“ cat ch al l” om

ni bu s clau se th at is “ far m or e ge ne ral in sco pe th an th e earl ie r cl au se s

of th e st at ut e”).

Co ns is te nt wit h t h i s in te rp ret at io n, we ha ve affi rm ed a co nv ic ti on un de r § 1 51 2( c)(2 ) whe n a de fen da nt att em pt s t o o bs tru ct a pr oc eed in g b y so li ci ti ng fal se

st at em en ts

. Se e Uni te d St at es v. L u c a s , 4 9 9 F.3 d 76 9, 78 0- 81 (8 th Ci r. 20 07 )
(aff irming de fen da nt ’s co nv ic ti on un de r § 15 12 (c)( 2) fo r req ue st in g th at in di vi du al s

fal se ly cl ai m own ers hi p of a fir earm ). Oth er ci rcu it s ha ve affi rm ed si m il ar

co nv ic ti on s un de r § 15 12 (c)( 2)

. Se e Uni te d St at es v. Jef f e rs on , 75 1 F.3 d 31 4, 32 1
(5 th Ci r. 20 14 ) (d efen da nt m ad e in te nt io na l fal se st at em en ts to t h e c o u r t du rin g a

pr el im in ary in

jun ct io n he ari ng ); Ca rs on , 56 0 F

. 3 d a t 58 4 (d efen da nt m ad e fal se

st at em en ts to a gr an d jury); Uni te d St at es v. Min tmi re , 50 7 F.3 d 12 73

, 12 90 (1 1t h Ci r.

-1 4-2 0 0 7 ) (d efen da nt “ at te m pt ed to or ch es tra te ” gr an d jury wit ne ss ’s te st im on y by

se nd in g n ot es to an att or ne y who in tu rn “ co ach ed ” th e wit ne ss ).

We reject Pet ru k’s read in g of § 15 12 (c)( 2) an d co nc lu de th at th e ev id en ce i s

su ffi ci en t to su pp or t hi s ob st ru ct io n co nv ic ti on (Co un t 3) fo r act io ns he to ok to se cu re

fal se st at em en ts aft er th e in it ia ti on of th e fed eral pr os ecu ti on

. Acco rd in gl y , we affi rm

th at co nv ic ti on

.

II I. Con cl us io n

F o r th e fo reg oi ng reas on s, we VACATE Pet ru k’s co nv ic ti on s fo r carjac ki n g (Co un t 1) an d at te m

pt in g to ob st ru ct an of

fic ia l pr oc eed in g (Co un t 2) fo r act io ns he

to ok to ob ta in fal se st at em en ts whi le in carc era te d on st at e ch arg es

. W e AFFIR M

Pet ru k’s re m ai ni ng ob st ru ct io n c on vi ct io n (C ou nt 3).

At Pet ru k’s se nt en ci ng , th e d i s t ric t co ur t ap pe ars to ha ve ad op te d th e

reco m m en da ti on in th e p r es en te nc e in ve st ig at io n rep or t th at be cau se Pet ru k’s

co nv ic ti on s sh ou ld be gr ou pe d un de r U.S.S.G. § 3D1 .2(c ), th e ba se of fen se le ve l fo r
bo th ob st ru ct io n co nv ic ti on s is eq ua l to th e b a se of fen se le ve l fo r th e un de rlyin g carjac ki ng of

fen se

. Se e U.S.S.G. § 3C 1.1 cm t. n.8

. Und er th is rat io na le

, th e di st ric t

co ur t calc ul at ed an of

fen se le ve l of 30 fo r each of Pet ru k’s ob st ru ct io n con vi ct io ns

. Howev er, be cau se gr ou pi ng Pet ru k’s ob st ru ct io n co nv ic ti on s wit h hi s c a r ja ck in g

co nv ic ti on un de r § 3D1 .2 was co nt in ge nt on Pet ru k be in g co nv ic te d of th e un de rlyin g

of fen se (car jack in g)

, se e § 3C 1.1 cm t. n.8

, it w o u l d a p pe ar th at ou r va cat io n of

Pet ru k’s carjac ki ng co nv ic ti on m ay al te r th e ap pl ic ab le G u i d e li ne s ran ge fo r th e
ob st ru ct io n co nv ic ti on we affi rm to da y

. Acco rd in gl y , we rem an d to th e di st ric t co ur t

fo r res en te nc in g o n P et ru k’s re m ai ni ng co nv ic ti on

.

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

-1 5-