2004 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit
4-14-2004 

# U SA v . B u sh
P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 03-2704

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2004

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2004 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min . C a rl s on@l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du
. Re c omme nde d C it at ion

" U SA v . B ush " (2004). 2004 D e cisio n s . P ape r 840. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2004/840NOT PRECEDE NTIAL UNIT ED STA TES C OURT OF A PPE AL FO R T HE TH IRD CIR CU IT
No. 03-2704
UNIT ED STA TES OF AMERI CA,

v. MELVI N BUSH,

Appellant

On A ppeal from the Un ited States District Co urt for the Easte rn D istrict of P enns ylvania (D.C. Crimi nal No. 02-cr -00651-1) Distric t Judg e: Ho n. Le grom e D . Dav is
Submitte d Pursuant to Third Circ uit LAR 34.1(a)

April 13, 2004 BE FO RE : RE ND EL L, C OW EN and LA Y* , Circuit Judges (Fil ed: April14, 2004)
OPI NION
CO W EN , Circuit

Judge
.

*H ono rable D onald P. La y, Senior U nited S tates C ircuit Jud ge fo r the E ighth C ircuit, sitting by designation.2

Marvin Bush was charged in an indict ment with conspiracy

to commit ar

med robbery of a federalcredit

union, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371; armed robbe ryof a fed er al cr edi t uni on, invi ol at io n of 18 U. S. C. § 211 3( d) ; u si ng afi re arm durin g a c ri me of viole nce, i n violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c); and aidi ng and abett ing, in violation of 18 U. S. C. § 2. On Fe brua ry 24, 200 3, a j uryfo und

Bus h gu ilty

of al l c ha rg es . A t sentencing, the Distri ct Court a dded a two-le vel enhancement under § 3C1.1 of the United S tates Sentencin g Gu idelines (“Sen tencing G uidelines”). The District Cou rt sentence d Bush to serve a pris on term of 155 months, and to pay $29,977.00 in rest itution and a $300.00 spec ial a ssessment . The District Court furt

her sent enced Bush to a fi veyear p erio d of

sup erv ised relea se, to com me nce afte r his t erm of im priso nm ent h as e nde d. This appealfollowed. The Distri ct Court ha d juri sdict ion under 18 U.S. C. § 3231, and we exercise juri sdict ion under 28 U.S. C. § 1291. Bush argues that the Distri ct Court s hould not have applie d an enhancement under § 3C1.1, becaus e the pros ecuti on never refuted Bush’s te sti mony that the offendi ng language was not

intende d to be a threat. While Bush was in cust ody awaiting senten cing, h e sen t a letter to h is wife, in w hich h e stated , “I will g et that p rosec utor, S eth Weber, for doi ng this to me and (SA) Neeson for fucking up our getaway trip for that
we eken d.” (G ov’t A pp. at 1 .) The letter w as rev iewe d by B ureau of P risons p erson nel, who interpr eted this sent ence as a t hreat and notifi ed Assist ant Unite d States Attorney Weber. The government t hen fil ed a supplement al sent encing memorandum, r equesting3

that t he Distr ict Court

add an obstr

uction of just ice enhance ment under § 3C1.1 of t he Sentencing Guidelines. The Distric t Cou rt postp oned the sen tencin g hea ring to a llow the pa rties time to brief t he issue , and hel d an evident iary hearing on J

une 5, 2003. At the hear ing, prosecut ors ent ered a copy of the l ette r int o evidence, and argued that Bush had intentio nally writte n the o ffen ding senten ce, an d that th e sen tence wa s reaso nably construed as a threat against the prosecutor and the chief prosecution witness. Bush testified and e xplain ed tha t he did not m ean th e sen tence as a thr eat to a nyone, b ut me rely
mea nt to em phas ize to h is wife that h e w ould prev ail on a ppea l. The Distric t Cou rt did not credit Bush’s expl anati on, and granted the gover nment’s r equest for

a two point enha ncem ent. We review the Dist

rict Court’s f

actualdetermi nation t

hat Bush will fully

obstruc ted
or a ttem pted to o bstru ct jus tice for c lear e rror, and the Dist rict Court’s l egal inter pre tatio ns a nd a ppl icatio n of the g uid eline s un der a ple nar y stand ard
. See United States v . Pow ell , 13 F.3d 4 64, 467 (3 d Cir. 199 7). Under the Sentencing G uidelines, If (A ) the de fend ant w illfully obstru cted o r impe ded, o r attem pted to obstruc t or i mpede, the a dminist rati on of just ice during the cours e of the invest igati on, pros ecuti on, or s entenci ng of the i nstant offense of conviction, an d (B) the o bstructive con duct related to (I) the de fendan t’s offense of convi ction and any r elevant conduct; or (i i) a cl osely relat ed offense, increase the offense level by 2 levels.4

U.S .S.G . § 3C 1.1. T he ap plication notes expla in that th is adjus tmen t applie s to “threatening, intimidating, or otherwise unlawfully i nfluencing a co-defendant, witness, or ju ror, d irect ly or ind irect ly, or atte mp ting to d o so .” U .S.S .G. § 3C 1.1, c mt. n .4(a ). Th e go ver nm ent b ears the b urd en o f pr oof wh en it s eek s an upw ard adju stm ent. United States v. Belletiere , 971 F.2d 961, 965 (3d Cir. 1992). I t must pr ove, by a preponderance of the evide nce, th at “the defe ndan t willfu lly obstructe d or im pede d, or w illfully atte mpted to obst

ruct or impede, t

he administ

rati on of just ice. ” Id In th is ca se th e go ver nm ent p rod uce d th e lette r co ntain ing the o ffe ndi ng l ang uag e. Bush concedes that he did wri te the letter, including t he offending l anguage, and acknowledges that the language coul d be constr ued as a thr eat. He argues, however, that the District Cou rt erred in applying § 3C 1.1 becau se the gov ernmen t did not refute B ush’s test imony t

hat he di d not int end the l anguage as a t hreat. Although Bush did t esti fy t hat he m eant o nly to sho w h is wife how confident h e w as that h e w ould prev ail upo n app eal, the District Cou rt was no t required to acce pt his explana tion. The D istrict Court explained that the wo rds wo uld gene rally be interpreted as a threat, and that B ush’s testimony “does n ot convinc e me tha t [Bush ] had an a lternate mean ing.” (Ap pellant’s Ap p. at 33 a.) Th is find ing w as no t clearly erron eous . Acc ordin gly, the D istrict Co urt did not err in granting the gove rnment’s request for an enhancement

under § 3C1.1.Fo r the for ego ing reas ons , the ju dgm ent o f the Dis trict C our t ente red on J une 9,

2003 will be a ffirmed.