FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V EN T H C IR C U IT April 17, 2008 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [ P U B L I S H ]
IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ _ N o. 06- 1541 0

____ ____ ____ _ D. C. Docket N o. 05-00017 -CR- 002-HL -6
UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Plaintiff-Appellee- Cr oss -Appe llant,
ve rs us CHARLES L. HARRELL, a. k. a. Ch ar le s L ad on H ar re ll, D ef en dant- Appe llantCross-Appellee.

____ ____ ____ Appeals fr om

the United State s District Court fo r the Mi ddl e D istri ct

of G eo rg ia

____ ____ ____ (A pr il 17, 200 8) Be fo re CA RN E S, BA RKE T T and H IL L , Ci rc uit Jud ge s.Cha rl e s H arr e ll a

nd Mart in H arr e ll h a d e a c h b e e n in dic te d p re vio us ly in s e pa ra te 1 indictments. The superse ding indictment c onsolidated their counts a nd added W. Dexter Har rison. 2 HI LL , C ircuit Judg e: Ch ar le s H ar

re ll ap pe al s th e re as ona

ble ne ss o f his six ty -m onth se nte nc e fo r obstructio n of j ustice, in violation of 18 U. S. C. § 150 3, and the U nited States
cro ss -ap pe al s, ch al le ng in g t he di st ric t co ur t’s Se nt en ci ng Gui de li ne cal cu la ti on . W e re vie wase nte nc ing c ourt’ s in te rp re tatio n of the gui de lin es de novo , giv ing du e d efer en ce t o t he di st ric t co ur t’s ap pl ic at io n o f th e g ui de li ne s t o t he fact s. U nited Sta tes v . Craw

ford , 407 F. 3d 11 74, 1177-78 (11 Cir. 2005 ). W e re view th th e d is tri ctco ur t’s fi nd in g o f fac ts forcle ar erro r. Id
. I. In 2005, Charles H arre ll (“ Charles”) , his son Martin L. Harrell ( “ Martin”)
an d hi s so n’ s lo ng- tim e fr ie nd W
. D ex te r H ar ri son, w er e ind ic te d inathi rt ee ncount superseding ind ictm ent invo lving three incidents. Charle s and Martin we re 1 ch ar ge d w ithc onsp ir ing to int er fe re w ithint er state c om m er ce by thr eats, intim idation , and extortio n, in violation of 18 U. S. C. § 195 1(a)( the “ Hobbs Act of fe nse s” ). T he ind ic tm en t a lle ge d th at in 1999 , Mart in, w ho r ai se d c attle
co m m erci al ly, ha d c on tra ct edto rai se cat tl e fo r an ot he r farm er, Will ia m Ch an dl er. H ow ev er , a t the e nd o f the c ontra ct , Mart in and C handl er dis ag re ed

on the a m ountTh e re ma ini ngc ounts of the ind ic tme nt, wh ic h in c lud e d c ha rg e s o f m a il f

ra ud , w itn e ss 2 tampering , interfe ringwith interstate commer ce, a nd makingmisleadingstatements, ar e not re le va nt t o th is a

pp e a l. 3 Martin w as to be paid. A s a result, it was a lleged, Mar tin and Charles threatened and intim idated Chandler and his wife and daug hter. The indictm ent alleged that Mart in and C harl es hir ed tw o m enw ho l ur ed

Ch an dle r an d hi s w if

e fr om the ir hom e an d a ssa

ult ed the m . O ne of

the se m en

w as appr eh en de d and c onvi ct ed ; the oth er , Bo bby

P ow el l, dis ap pe ar ed

and h as ne ve r be enf

ound
. T he sup er se din g in dic tm en t a lso c harg ed Mart in and H ar

ri son w ith
co nspi ri ng t o c om

m it ar son an d m ai l f

ra ud, in vio latio n of

18 U
. S. C. §§ 3 71, 844(i) and 134 1, and Count 7 charged com m itting arson, in violation o f 18 U. S. C. § 84 4( i)
. T he ind ic tm en t a lle ge d th at H ar ri son hir ed

Mart in t o se t f

ir e to H ar ri son’ s m ote l f

or ins ur an ce pur

pose s, that M ar

tinse t the m ote l onf

ir e w hil e it
wa s occupied, and that both Martin and Harrison m ade fa lse statem ents to conceal the se a ct s duri ng the gov er nm en t’ s in ve sti ga tio n. Fi na lly , the sup er se din g in dic tm en t c harg ed Ch ar le s w ithw itn es s tam pe ri ng, in v iol at ionof

18 U
. S. C. § 15 12( b) (3 ), a lle gin g th at Ch ar le s ha d in tim idate d or thr eate ne d hi s da

ught er -i n- law , Jul ie H ar

re ll (“ Jul ie ”) , Mart in’ s w if e, to pr ev en t he r fr om he lpi ng the auth or iti es w iththe pr ose cu tio n of the e xto rt ionand ars on of fe nse s. T he ind ic tm en t a lle ge d th at Ch ar le s c al le d Ju lie to his hom e an d ha d a 2Although initially rele ased to a

wait trial, Charle s was re -ar rested a fter a g ain contac ting 3 J ulie Har rell in violation of the district court’s c onditions of relea se. Th e dis tr ic t c ourt

se ve re d th e Ho bb s A c ts o ff e ns e s into a

se pa ra te tr ia l. 4 In M ay , b e fo re a

se c on d tr ia l on

the re ma ini ngc ounts wa s h e ld, Ma rt in p le a d guil ty

to 5 the Ho bb s A c t c on sp ir a c y and the g ov e rnme nt d

ro pp e d th e re ma ini ngc ha rg e s a g a ins t hi m. 4 co nve rs at ionw ithhe r in whic h he de m an de d th at she giv e him

ac opy of the gr an d j ur y sub poe nashe r ec ei ve d inc onne ct ionw iththe ars on c harg es a ga ins t M ar tin , atte m pte d to le ar

n f ro m he r the ide nti tie s of

c onf ide nti al w itn es se s, and tri ed to pe rs ua de he r not

to co ope rate w iththe gov er nm en t i n it s in ve sti ga tio n and pr ose cu tio n of

Mart in. Whil e Ch ar le s w as aw ai tin g tr ia l i n j ai l on the se c harg es , he c ont ac te d hi s girlfriend, K earsley

Doughty , sever al tim es. A lthou gh Charles knew that 3 D ough ty w as not pr es en t duri ng h is e nti re “ w itn es s tam pe ri ng” c onve rs at ionw ith Jul ie H ar re ll, he a tte m

pte d to pe rs ua de D ough ty to te sti fy to his ve rs ionof

the fa ct s r eg ar din g th is c onve rs at ion
. Ch ar le s, Mart in and H ar

ri son w en t t o tr ia l onthe ars on- re late d c harg es and Ch ar le s’ c harg e of

tam pe ri ng w ithJul ie H ar

re ll’ s te sti m ony

in Fe br uary of 200 6. 4 T he j ur y c onvi ct ed

H ar ri son on a ll ch ar ge s, c onvi ct ed Mart in o f fo ur

of the ch ar ge s ( inc lud ing the ars on) , and a cquitte d C harl es of w itn es s tam

pe ri ng. 5 InMay , the gov er

nm en t f ile d asup er se din g in fo rm at iona ga ins t C harl es ,5

charging him

with one count of obst ruction of justice f or attem pting to convin ce K ears le y D ough ty to supp ort hi s ve rs ionof the a lle ge d w itn es s tam

pe ri ng co nve rs at ionhe ha d w ithJul ie H ar re ll. I n June , he ple ad

gui lty to thi s c harg e, and the gov er nm en t dr oppe d th e re m ai nin g H obbs A ct c harg es . T he ple a ag re em en t c ont ai ne d th e fo llo w ing sti pul at ionof f ac ts, w hic h th e part ie s a gr ee d di d no t bi nd the dis tr ic t c ourt:

[D ur ing ape ri od o f tim e pr ec ed ing his tr ia l f or w itn es s t a mp e r i n g u n d e r

C o u n t4 o f

th e i n d i c t men t , Ha rr e l l c o rr up t l y] en co ur ag ed

his f ianc ee , Ms
. K ears le y

D ough ty to te sti fy to his ve rs ionof

f ac ts o f w hic h sh e ha d no pe rs ona l kn ow le dge
. . . [ an d which he hoped] would bring abou t his acquittal . .
. . In particular , w hil e inc ar ce rate d onthe c harg es in the ind ic tm en t, [ H ar re ll] w ro te num er ous le tte rs to, and h ad num er ous te le phon e co nve rs at ion s w ith , [Do ug ht y ] in whi ch he en co ur ag edhe r to gi ve tes ti m on y at t ria l. Man y of t he se co nv ers at io ns were re co rd ed
. . . . In [o ne ] le tt er . . . , [H ar re ll] w ro te out

his ve rs ionof

e ve nts and a ske d he r to g ive an sw er s c onsi ste nt w ith[ it, if she te sti fi ed ]
. [ D ough ty ] ha d a lr ea dy told [Harr ell] that she didn ’ t hear a ll of their conversation between [h im and h is d au ght er -i n- law ] w hic h r es ult ed in the w itn es s tam pe ri ng c harg es . . . . F urthe r, [ she ] ha d a lr ea dy tol d [ him ] that sh e ha d to ld h is c ouns el that sh e w as not in the sam e ro om

w he re the dis put e . . . start ed
. [ H ar

re ll] r ep lie d .
. . in a re co rd ed c onve rs at ion , “ Tha t’s jus t my

lawyer.” At sentencing, the governm ent contended th at Charles’ base offe nse level shou ld b e ca lc ulate d un de r the O bstru ct ionof Jus tic e G uid el ine , § 2J 1. 2, but shou ld a lso be c ro ss- re fe re nc ed to se ve ra l othe r gui de lin e se ct ion s, inc lud ing tho se fo r ar son, the H obbs A ct

of fe nse s, and f

ir st- de gr ee m

ur de r. T he gov er

nm en tThe district cour t, after consideringthe appr opriate guideline fa ctors, grante d an upwa rd 6 varia nce a nd sentenc ed Charle s to six ty months in prison. Al tho ugh th e Gu ide lin e s are a dv iso ry on ly , th e y

mus t st ill be c a lc ulate d c or re c tly in 7 order for the district c ourt to g ive them the appr opriate c onsideration. Un ite d S tates v . Crawf

or d , 407 F.3d 1174, 1178- 79 (11 Cir. 2005). th 6 ar gue d th at

the c ro ss- re fe re nc ing w as m an da tor y be ca use Ch ar le s’ obs tr

uc tio n occurred “ in respect to” these other underly ing crim es. The P relim inary Se nte nc ing Re port ( the “ PS R” ), how ev er , too k th e posi tio n th at Ch ar le s’ convictio n for obstructing j ustice by tam pering with Doughty ’ s potenti al testim ony relate d onlyto the crim e of tam pering with Julie Har

rell’ s testim ony . In
es se nc e, the P SR

too k th e posi tio n th at

Ch ar le s ha d ob str

uc te d on ly

an ob str uc tio n pr ose cu tio n. O ve r the gov er

nm en t’ s ob

j ec tio n, the dis tr ic t c ourt a cc ep te d th is arg um en t and refused to increase Charles’ base offe nse level by ref erence to the other crim es ch ar ge d inthe sup er se din g in dic tm en t or the m ur de r inv es tig at ion
. T he gove rn m en t a

ppe al s th is s en te nc ing de ci sio n. C harl es appe al s th e re as ona ble ne ss of his sentence. 6 II. Se nte nc ing f

or obs tr uc tio n of j ust ic e unde r § 2J 1. 2 of

the G uid el ine s, 7 pr ovi de s inpart

that: (c) Cross Refe renceTh is c ro ss- re fe re nc ingis t o o c c ur “ wi tho ut a

ny qu a lif ic atio n a nd wi tho ut r e g ard

to 8 whether defe ndant or a

ny body else wa s convicted of

the under lying of

fense , or whe ther a

n offe nse could be shown to have be en committed at all.” United States v. Mc Quee n , 86 F.3d 180, 182 (11 Cir. 1996).

th 7 (1 ) If the of fe nse inv olv ed

obs tr uc tin g th e inv es tig at ionor prosecution of a c rim inal offense, apply § 2X3.1 ( Ac cessory A ft er the F ac t) in re spe ct

to that c ri m ina l of

fe nse , if the resulting o ffense le vel is greater than that determ ined above. 8 Se ct ion2X 3. 1 sp ec if

ie s th at the ba se of

fe nse le ve l f

or c al cu latin g th e de fe ndant’ s se nte nc e is s ix l ev el s lo w er than th e of

fe nse le ve l “ fo r the und er ly ing of fe nse . ” T his m eans tha t the ba se of fe nse le ve l f

or the obs tr uc tin g de fe ndant i s six le ve ls l ow er

that the of

fe nse le ve l f

or the c ri m e the pr ose cu tio n of w hic h th e de fen da ntatt em

pt edto ob st ru ct . United States v. P ompey , 17 F
. 3d 3 51, 353 ( 11 th Cir. 1994 ). T he r ea son fo r the c ro ss- re fe re nc e is b ec au se “ the c ondu ct c ove re d by

thi s gui de lin e is f

re que ntl y part of an e ff ort t o avoi d punis hm en t f or an of fe nse that the defendant has com

m itted or to assistanother person to escape punish m ent for an offense. ” U

nited Sta tes v . B re nson , 104 F
. 3d 1 267, 128 5 ( 11 Ci r. 199 7)
. T he th
cr oss -r ef er en ce a llo w s th e se nte nc ing c ourt “ to w ei gh the se ve ri ty of one ’ s a ct ion s in o bstru ct ing j ust ic e ba se d onthe se ve ri ty of the und er ly ing of

fe nse that w as the
su bjec t o f th e jud ic ia l p ro ceed in g s ou gh t t o b e o bs tru ct ed , im pe de d o r in flu en ced .” Id
. The question is, then, what underly ing crim e(s) did Charle s attem pt to ob struct8

b y t a mp e r i n g wi th Do u g h ty’s t e s t i mo n y. D ough ty ’ s f

al se te sti m ony , if

giv en , w oul d have gon e to n eg at e the c harg e ag ai nst Ch ar le s of

tam pe ri ng w iththe w itn es s, Jul ie H ar re ll. T he gov er

nm en t
ar gue s, how ev er , that C harl es w as a lso a tte m pti ng t o ob str

uc t the ars on and H obbs A ct of fe nse s, f or w hic h he , Mart in and H ar ri son w er e aw ai tin g tr ia l, a s w el l a s th e Bo bby P ow el l po ssi ble m

ur de r pr ose cu tio n. T he iss ue is w he the r Ch ar le s’ obstru ct ionc anbe he ld t o be “ in r es pe ct to” the se c ri m es . A lth oughne ve r ar

tic ulate d ve ry

c le ar ly , the gov er

nm en t’ s th eo ry

appe ar s to be that C harl es ’ a tte m

pt t o ge t D ough ty

to te sti fy f al se ly ha d th e pot en tia l t o de ra il the gov er nm en t’ s pr ose cu tio n of

the ars on, H obbs A ct

of fe nse s, and B obby Po w el l’ s po ssi ble m

ur de r by und er m ini ng the c re dib ili ty

of Jul ie H ar re ll. Jul ie H ar re ll w as the gov er

nm en t’ s st ar

w itn es s a ga ins t C harl es , Mart in and H ar ri son on the ars on and H obbs A ct

c harg es . S he w as to te sti fy about Mart in, he r husb an d’ s, ac tiv iti es the nig ht o f the m ote l ars on – inc lud ing that he w en t out l at e at nig ht i n his own ve hic le and r et

ur ne d se ve ra l ho ur s late r in h is f athe r’ s ve hic le , r ee kin g of die se l f ue l. S he w oul d r el at e howshe dis co ve re d M ar tin ’ s c lothe s th e ne xt
m or nin g inthe w as hin g m ac hin e, w ithar ing of die se l r es idu e in the tub
. S he
w oul d te sti fy

to he r co nf

ro ntatio n w ithMart in, dur ing w hic h he thr eate ne d th at she would wind up dead if she ever told any one what she had seen. She a lso wasAt the time of this conver sation, only Martin had be en indicted. 9 9 pr ep ar ed to te sti fy that M ar tintol d he r that he and h is f athe r hir ed

a“ hit m an ” to atta ck Ch an dle r. S he a lso ha d audi o ta pe s inwhic h sh e re co rd ed c onve rs at ion s
w ithMart in c onc er

nin g th e dis ap pe ar an ce of Bo bby P ow el l and d isp osa l of

his b o dy. If Jul ie ’ s te sti m ony

w as c re dit ed

by the j ur y , the de fe ndants w oul d li ke ly be
co nvi ct ed
. O n th e oth er

hand, the pr ose cu tio n of Ch ar le s, Mart in and H ar ri son
w oul d have be ense ve re ly und er m ine d if the j ur y did not be lie ve he r te sti m ony about th e ar son and th e attack on Chandler. Ina ddi tio n to te sti fy ing to the e ve nts de sc ri be d a bove , how ev er , Jul ie Harrell w as to testify

against Charles on the charge that he attem pted to tam

per
w ithhe r te sti m ony . Jul ie w as to re late he r ve rs ionof he r co nve rs at ionw ith Ch ar le s duri ng whic h sh e sa id tha t he a tte m pte d t o pe rs ua de he r not

to co ope rate
w iththe gov er

nm en t i n it s in ve sti ga tio n and p ro se cu tio n of Mart in. C harl es ’

9 atte m pt t o pe rs ua de D ough ty

to te sti fy that sh e ove rh eard

thi s c onve rs at ionand th atJ u l i e’s v er s i o no f i twa s n o ttru e w as an at t emp tt o co n tra d i ctJ u l i e’s te st im on y , th ereb y

ne ga ti ng th e fi rs t wi tn es s t am pe rin g c ha rg e ag ai ns t h im
. H ow ev er , if

suc ce ssf ul, thi s atta ck

on Juli e’ s te sti m ony

r eg ar din g th e wi tn es s t amp er i n g ch ar g e mig h tal s o h av e h adth e e ff ec to f u n d erm i n i n g J u l i e’s10

cr ed ibi lity

ge ne ra lly
. I f the j ur

y be lie ve d D ough ty ’ s ve rs ionof the c onve rs at ion , it
m igh t c onc lud e that Ju lie w as not ac re dib le w itn es s. I f Jul ie ’ s c re dib ili ty w er e put in d oubt , the re w as ave ry r ea l po ssi bil ity

that the j ur

y m igh t r ej ec t he r te sti m ony on the ars on- re late d c harg es . I n th is e ve nt, the gov er nm en t’ s pr ose cu tio n of

tho se ch ar ge s m igh t have be ende ra ile d. Fo r the obs tr

uc tio n of j ust ic e to b e “ in r es pe ct

to” the c ri m es ur ge d by

the gove rn m en t t o be c ro ss- re fe re nc ed , the obs tr uc tio n of j ust ic e m ust have ha d th e pot en tia l t o di sr

upt the gov er

nm en t’ s in ve sti ga tio n or

pr ose cu tio n of

tho se c ri m es . Ch ar le s’ a tte m

pt t o ge t D ough ty

to te sti fy f al se ly ha d th e pot en tia l no t on ly to have him a cquitte d of

w itn es s tam

pe ri ng w ithJul ie , but

a lso to have Mart in and H ar ri son ac qui tte d of

the ars on- re late d c harg es . T he re fo re , Ch ar le s’ c onvi ct ionf or obstru ct ing j ust ic e by

a tte m pti ng t o pe rs ua de D ough ty to te sti fy f al se ly w as “ in respect to” his charge of witness tam pering with Julie, but also the arson-related ch ar ge s a ga ins t M ar

tinand H ar

ri son. T he gov er

nm en t, how ev er , arg ue s th at the H obbs A ct

of fe nse s a s w el l a s th e
m ur de r of Bo bby P ow el l are a lso pr ope rl y c ro ss- re fe re nc ed

to Ch ar le s’ c onvi ct ion for tam pering with Doughty ’ s testim ony . W e disagree. T he Hobbs Act off enses ha d be ense ve re d f

ro m the tr ia l of

the Jul ie H ar

re ll w itn es s tam

pe ri ng c harg e an d
ar s o n -r el at edo ff

en s es . Th er ef

o re , C h ar l es ’ ef

fo rt s t o u n d erm i n e J u l i e H arre l l ’s11

cr ed ibi lity

be fo re the j ur

y in that tri al c oul d have ha d no im pa ct on a late r tr ia l on the H obbs A ct

of fe nse s. T he re w oul d be no Juli e H ar re ll w itn es s tam

pe ri ng c ount in tha t tri al , and, the re fo re , no o cc as ionf or D ough ty to te sti fy in ana tte m

pt t o unde rm ine Jul ie ’ s c re dib ili ty . T he re fo re , the D ough ty w itn es s tam

pe ri ng co nvi ct ionund er

r ev ie whe re w as not

“ in r es pe ct

to” the H obbs A ct

of fe nse s. Nor did Charle s’ attem

pt to un derm ine Julie’ s credibility in the first trial have the pot en tia l t o de ra il the inv es tig at ionof P ow el l’ s di sa

ppe ar an ce , sin ce the governm ent clear ly

did no t believe Doughty and did believe Ju lie Harrell ( as evidenced by

its charging Charles with w itness tam pering for his efforts to get Doughty to und erm ine Julie’ s testim ony ). W e co nc lud e, the re fo re , that, f or pur pose s of se nte nc ing , the ba se le ve l f or Ch ar le s’ pr es en t ob str

uc tio n of j ust ic e co nvi ct ionm

ust be c ro ss- re fe re nc ed

to the appropriate guidelin es for the arson-related char ges the gov ernm ent was p ro s ec u t i n g i nth e t ri al i nwh i ch Ch ar l es s o u g h tt o u n d erm i n e J u l i e H arre l l ’s te sti m ony . O n r em an d, the dis tr ic t c ourt i s in str uc te d to c al cu late his ba se of fe nse le ve l atsi x l ev el s l owe r th an th e m os t s eri ou s o f th es e cri m es . See M cQ ueen , 86 F. 3d at 18 4 ( w he re c ro ss- re fe re nc ing r equir ed , and m or e than on e of fe nse ap pli ca ble , the m ost

se ri ous of

fe nse is to b e use d, c iti ng U
. S. S. G
. § 1B 1. 5,
com m entary , n. 3).12

Beca use we vacate H arre ll’ s sentence due to the dist rict court’ s incorrect application o f the Guidelin es, w e need not consid er whether that sentence w as unr ea sona

ble , a s he c ont en ds. III
. A cc or din gly , the se nte nc e of the dis tr ic t c ourt i s va cate d, and the c as e is
re m an de d to the dis tr ic t c ourt f or r ec al cu latio n of

the se nte nc e in a cc or danc e w ith thi s op ini on. VACATED AN D REMANDED.