N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. LAW R ENC E KOM INEK, De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 15-10206

D.C . No. 3:14-c r-00025-HDM
VPC -1
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ne v a da H owa rd D. M c Kibbe n, Se nior Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d M ay 9, 2016 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : KLEINFELD, IKUTA, a nd WATFORD , C irc uit Judge s. Lawre nc e Kom ine k wa s c onvic te d of two c ounts of m e tha m phe t am ine distribution in the

Unite d Stat e s Distric t

C ourt for the Distric t of Ne v a da . He now a ppe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s im position of a

two le ve l se nte nc ing e nha nc e m e nt unde r 

# FIL ED JUN 02 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.the U nite d State s Se nte nc ing Guide line s § 3C 1.1 for obstruc tion of justic e . W e

have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291 a nd we a ffirm
. Unde r the Guide line s, “ [o] bstruc t ive c onduc t c an va ry wide ly in na ture ,” and
c an inc lude “ t

hre a te ning” a pe rson involve d in the justic e sy s te m “ d ire c tly or indire c tly .” U.S.S.G. § 3C 1.1 c m t. n.3, n.4(A). W e are bound by this c om m e nta ry be c a use it is ne ithe r inc onsiste nt with nor a pla inly e rrone o us re a ding of § 3C 1.1. Unite d State s v . Be rnardo , —

F.3d — , 2016 W L 1445223, a t *2 (9th C i r. 2016) (“ [T] he c om

m e nta ry in the Guide line s M an

ua l tha t inte rpre ts or e xpla ins a guide l ine is a

uthorita t ive unle ss it . . . is inc onsiste n t with, or a pla inly e rrone ous re a d ing of, tha

t guide l ine .” (quoting Unite d State s v . Martin , 796 F.3d 1101, 1108 (9th C ir. 2015) (inte rna l quota tion m arks om itte d ))). C onduc t tha t is suffic ie ntly thre a te ning to a

pe rson who pla

y s a role in the de fe n da

nt’ s future se nte nc ing proc e e dings, whe the r or not the thre at is m a d e dire c tly to the thre ate n e d pe rson, is disruptiveto the c rim ina l j ustic e sy ste m . Se e Unite d State s v . J ac k son , 974 F.2d 104, 106 (9th C ir. 1992) (“ Whe re a de fe nda nt’ s sta te m e nts c an be re a sona

bly
c onstrue d a s a

thre a t , e ve n

if the y are not m a de dire c tly to the thre at e ne d pe rson, the d e fe nda

nt ha s obstruc te d justic e .” ). He re , the distric t c ourt did not c le arly e rr in c onc luding tha

t Kom ine k’ s c onduc t obstruc te d justic e . Se e id. at 105 (“ Whe the r a de fe nda nt obstruc te d justic e 2unde r the Guide l ine s is a fa c tua l de te rm ination we re vie w for c le ar e rror.” ). The distric t c o urt found tha

t K o m ine k spoke with a

n othe r prisone r ove r an e ight m onth pe riod of tim e a

bout how to sen d a

m e ssa ge to the prose c utor “ a s a form of intim idation.” The c ourt found tha t during the c ourse of the c onve rsation, Kom ine k told the othe r prisone r that it wa s be tte r to use C -4 e xplosive s (tha t Kom ine k c ould provide ) tha

n a gre na de to blow up the

prose c utor’ s c a

r, a nd Kom ine k a lso provide d instruc tions on how to a tta c h the e xplosive to the prose c utor’ s c a

r. Furthe r, the distric t c ourt found tha t Kom ine k ga

ve a uthoritie s inform a t ion a

bout the se c onve rsations in pa rt to re m ove him se l f a s a

possible suspe c t if the prose c utor’ s c ar we re blown up. Given the se findings, whic h a re supporte d by the re c ord, the distric t c ourt did not c le a rly e rr in c onc luding tha

t Kom ine k ’ s role in pla

nning how to intim

idate the prose c utor c onstitute d obstruc tion of justic e . Nor did the c ourt e rr in c ha ra c te riz ing this obstructive
c onduc t a s m e e ting there quire m e nts of § 3C 1.1, whic h inc lude s “ thre ate n ing”
c onduc t. U.S.S.G. § 3C 1.1 c m t. n.4(A). The fa c t

tha t Kom ine k’ s thre at e ning sta te m e nts we re not m a de dire c tly to the prose c utor is no obstac le to the
a pplic a tion of § 3C 1.1. Se e J ac k son, 974 F.2d a

t 106. AFFIRM E D.

3Unite d State s v. K om i ne k , No. 15-10206 KLEINFELD, Se n ior C i rc uit Judge , disse nting:

I re spe c tfully

disse nt.

The distric t c ourt finding wa s tha t Kom ine k “ im

m e rse d him se lf” in a
c onve rsation with a

fe llow prisone r who e xpre sse d a n inte nt to intim

idat e the prose c utor. The re wa s no finding tha t Kom ine k

inte nde d to intim

i date the prose c utor, a

nd the re wa s no finding tha t Kom ine k c om

m unic ate d to or thre ate ne d the p rose c utor dire c tly

or indire c tly . Kom i ne k’ s only c om m unic ation wa s with the FB I to disc lose the c onve rsations in which his a c qua i nta nc e e xpre sse d

a de sire to ha rm the prose c utor. Kom ine k’ s sta te d inte nt wa s pa

rtly to re m ove him se lf a s a suspe c t if his fe llow prisone r did inde e d c a use the prose c utor’ s c a

r to be blown up. R e porting a

possiblefuture c rim e to the a uthoritie s with a

n inte ntion not only

to pre v e n t it but also to re m ove one se l f a s a possiblesuspe c t, fa c ilita

te s justic e ra the r tha n obstruc ting it. Sinc e the re wa s no finding, a nd no fa c ts to support a

finding, that Kom ine k dire c tly

or indire c tly

thre ate ne d the prose c utor, the two-le ve l obstruc tion of justic e e nha nc e m e nt wa s e rrone ously im pose d. 

# FIL ED

JUN 02 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALSUnite d State s v. Ja c kson, 974 F.2d 104, 106 (9th C ir. 1992) doe s not dic tate

othe rwise . In Ja c kson, thede fe nda nt wa s a ssigne d a two-le ve l inc re a se for obstruc tion of justic e for m aking c opie s of a c oope ra tion a g re e m e nt with a witne ss with thewords “ ra t” writte n on it, a nd distributing the se c opie s a round the c ity

of Portla nd. The re a son this behavior c onstitute d a thre at, e ve n though it wa s indire c tly , rathe r tha

n dire c tly , c om

m unic ate d to the witne ss, is tha t the witne ss would know im

m e diate ly from the “ ra t” nota

tion on his ple a

a gre e m e n t tha

t his
sa fe ty wa s in da

nge r. No infe re nc e of intimidation c an be m a de he re . Kom ine k’ s only c om m unic a tion, to the FB I, would support a n infe re n c e tha

t he wa s thwa

rting
ra the r tha n m aking a

thre a t, a nd if he ha d “ im

m e rse d” him se lf, ha d

a lso withdra

w n from any plot a ga inst theprose c uting a ttorne y .

2