IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________

No. 97-60712

_____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee - Cross-Appellant,

versus

RONALD JOSEPH CLAYTON,

Defendant - Appellant - Cross-Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeals from the United States District Court for the

Northern District of Mississippi

_________________________________________________________________

April 12, 1999

Before JOLLY, WIENER, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

E. GRADY JOLLY, Circuit Judge

Ronald Joseph Clayton, former Chief Deputy Sheriff of DeSoto

County, Mississippi, stands convicted of violating the civil

rights of an arrested woman by kicking her in the head. He also

was convicted of making a false statement of material fact to the

FBI when he denied the use of unreasonable force during the

incident of arrest. On appeal, Clayton challenges the district

court’s denial of his motion for judgment of acquittal on the

grounds that the government had failed to establish venue.

Clayton also contends that the district court gave an improper
2

modified Allen charge to the jury. Finally, Clayton challenges

the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions.

The government cross-appeals. It contends that the district

court erred in failing to enhance Clayton’s offense level by two

levels, first, under § 3A1.3 and, second, under § 3C1.1 of the

United States Sentencing Guidelines because Freeman was physically

restrained (handcuffed) during the time she was kicked, and

because Clayton obstructed the federal investigation of the

incident by warning officers at the scene of the offense to keep

silent about what they saw. 

We affirm each of Clayton’s convictions, and his sentence for

making a false statement of material fact. We vacate Clayton’s

sentence with respect to the civil rights conviction and remand

for resentencing.

I

We do not retry a case in the appellate court. We therefore

view the facts in the light most favorable to the verdict. We

will very briefly state those facts. Clayton, during the drugrelated arrests of Jaefis Totten and Jennifer Freeman on

January 13, 1994, kicked Freeman in the head as she lay facedown

and handcuffed. Clayton was also charged with kicking Totten and

striking him with a police-issued flashlight. On March 9, 1995,

during the course of a federal investigation of the incident
 

118 U.S.C. § 242.

 

218 U.S.C. § 1001.

3

conducted by the FBI, Clayton expressly denied kicking, striking,

or using force against the pair. 

Some two years later, on May 22, 1997, the grand jury

indicted Clayton on one count of depriving Totten of his right to

be secure from unreasonable force by one acting under the color of

law,1 one count of depriving Freeman of her right to be secure from

unreasonable force by one acting under the color of law, and one

count of making a false statement of material fact to the FBI.2

The case was tried to a jury in July 1997. The jury, after

five and one-half hours of deliberating, informed the district

court that it was unable to reach a verdict on one of the charges.

The court gave the jury a modified Allen charge, instructing it

to keep deliberating. The jury returned the split verdict, now

the subject of this appeal, forty-five minutes after the district

court gave the charge. The jury found Clayton guilty of count 2,

violating Freeman’s civil rights and count 3, making a false

statement of material fact to the FBI. The jury, however,

acquitted Clayton of depriving Totten of his civil rights.

On October 15, 1997, the district court sentenced Clayton to

twelve months and one day imprisonment for the civil rights

conviction and twelve months and one day imprisonment for the
4

false statement conviction. The district court ordered Clayton’s

sentences to be served concurrently. It also fined him a total of

ten thousand dollars, five thousand for each conviction. The

district court further ordered Clayton to be placed on supervised

release after his imprisonment for a term of three years.

Finally, in sentencing Clayton, the district court rejected the

government’s argument that under U.S.S.G. § 3A1.3 Clayton’s

offense level should be adjusted upward by two-levels because he

assaulted Freeman while she was handcuffed. The district court

also rejected the government’s recommendation for the two-level

obstruction of justice enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1 on the

grounds that Clayton obstructed the subsequent FBI investigation

of the incident when, at the scene of the offense, he threatened

the officers with termination unless they kept quiet about what

they had seen.

On appeal, Clayton argues that the district court erred in

denying his motion for judgment of acquittal because the

government failed to prove that venue for the indicted offenses

lay in the Northern Judicial District of Mississippi. Second,

Clayton contends that the district court’s modified Allen charge

was prejudicial and coercive. Finally, Clayton challenges the

sufficiency of the evidence.
 

3Viewing all the evidence in the light most favorable to the

government, we conclude that the government established that each

of Clayton’s charged offenses occurred in the Northern Judicial

District of Mississippi. United States v. Leahy, 82 F.3d 624, 633

(5th Cir. 1996)(citations omitted). There is no dispute that the

acts of unreasonable force underlying the charges against Clayton

occurred along Highway 178, eastbound. FBI Agent John Lavoie

testified that Highway 178 is located in DeSoto County,

Mississippi. Similarly, the conversation forming the basis of the

false statement of material fact to the FBI also occurred in DeSoto

County, specifically, at the DeSoto County Sheriff’s Department.

Finally, Clayton himself admitted at trial that DeSoto County,

Mississippi, is located in the Northern Judicial District of

Mississippi. In the light of this proof, it is unnecessary for us

to elaborate further on the other evidence establishing venue in

this case.

 

4The evidence is clearly sufficient to support the civil

rights conviction. Three of the officers who witnessed Clayton

5

On cross-appeal, the government contends that because Freeman

was handcuffed when Clayton kicked her in the head, the district

court erred in failing to enhance Clayton’s offense level under

the victim restraint adjustment, U.S.S.G. § 3A1.3. The government

further contends that because Clayton threatened officers with

termination if they reported the offense, the district court erred

in refusing to apply the obstruction of justice adjustment,

U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1.

After a careful review of the record, we are satisfied that

the government adequately established venue of the charged

offenses.3 We also find that the sufficiency of the evidence

supports Clayton’s convictions for violating Freeman’s civil

rights4 and for making a false statement of material fact the FBI.5
kick Freeman in the back of the head testified that at the time of

assault, Freeman lay on the ground facedown, that she did not

resist arrest, and that she posed no threat of harm to the

officers. Officer Steve Bierbrodt testified that Freeman was

handcuffed during the offense. The three officers further agreed

that Clayton’s use of force in this manner was either unjustified

or without cause. In finding Clayton guilty beyond a reasonable

doubt, the jury must have credited this testimony over Clayton’s

explanation that he merely placed his foot between Freeman’s

shoulder blade and her neck, and that his actions were necessary to

put her under control so that she could be handcuffed. We find

this credibility determination well within the province of the jury

to make, and it is one that we will not disturb on appeal.

 

5In support of Clayton’s false statement conviction, FBI Agent

Lavoie testified that in a March 9, 1995 interview, Clayton

explicitly stated that he had not struck nor kicked Freeman during

her January 13, 1994 arrest, and that in accordance with his handsoff policy, he did not interfere with his officers during the

course of an arrest. There was sufficient evidence--noted above in

footnote 4--that Clayton’s statements to Agent Lavoie were false

and material. The jury could rationally conclude that they were

made with the specific intent to thwart the federal investigation

into his use of unreasonable force. See United States v. Sidhu,

130 F.3d 644, 650 (5th Cir. 1997)(citations omitted).

 

6See Allen v. United States, 164 U.S. 492, 501 (1896).

6

We therefore turn to address Clayton’s remaining argument and the

arguments raised by the government on cross-appeal. 

II

A

Clayton argues that each of his convictions should be

reversed because the district court’s modified Allen charge6 was

both prejudicial and coercive. Specifically, Clayton contends

that the Allen charge was coercive because the district court

alluded to sequestering the jury in the course of its
7

deliberations. Clayton argues that the coercive effect of the

district court’s threat of sequestration is supported by the fact

that the jury returned a split verdict against him in only fortyfive minutes after receiving the instruction. Clayton further

argues that the Allen charge was prejudicial because no reference

was made to the government’s burden of proving the charges against

him beyond a reasonable doubt. Clayton therefore contends that

the instruction encouraged the jury to accept a level of proof

below a reasonable doubt.

B

Because Clayton failed to object to the jury charge at trial,

we review the district court’s modified Allen charge for plain

error, a very difficult standard to satisfy, indeed. Douglas v.

United Serv. Auto. Ass’n., 79 F.3d 1415, 1424 (5th Cir. 1996) (en

banc)(citations omitted). Under the plain error standard,

forfeited errors are subject to review only where the errors are

“obvious,” “clear,” or “readily apparent,” and they affect the

defendant’s substantial rights. Id.; United States v. Calverley,

37 F.3d 160, 162-63 (5th Cir. 1994) (en banc), abrogated in part

by, Johnson v. United States, 117 S.Ct. 1544, 1549 (1997). We

will not exercise our discretion to correct the forfeited errors,

however, unless they “seriously affect the fairness, integrity, or

public reputation of the judicial proceeding.” Calverley, 37 F.3d
8

at 164 (citations omitted). Applying these standards to the

record before us, we do not find that the district court erred,

plain or otherwise, in giving the jury the modified Allen charge.

We permit district courts to give modified versions of the

Allen charge, so long as the circumstances under which the

district court gives the instruction are not coercive, and the

content of the charge is not prejudicial. United States v. Heath,

970 F.2d 1397, 1406 (5th Cir. 1992) (citations omitted). The

district court specifically instructed the jury, in part: 

[I]f I dismissed you for the night–-it would be very

difficult at this time to get accommodations for you.

I know several of you live pretty far away, so that

might be impractical but it is not impossible that you

could go home for the night and come back tomorrow if

you thought that would help, give you a fresh start

tomorrow.

Because nothing in this record plausibly can be read to suggest

that the district court coerced the jury to reach its verdict by

threatening sequestration, we find no “clear” nor “obvious” error

in the charge. Nor do we find the jury’s return of a verdict

after only a forty-five minute deliberation, in and of itself, to

be proof that its verdict was coerced. Even under the more

stringent abuse of discretion standard, we have approved Allen

charges where the jury later deliberated for as short as twentyfive minutes. United States v. Scruggs, 583 F.2d 238, 241 (5th

Cir. 1978) (citations omitted). 
9

We are also satisfied that the Allen charge was not

prejudicial. The district court, in its final jury charge,

admonished the jury at least eleven times that the government had

the burden of proving Clayton’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The district court also took care in its final charge to define

the term “reasonable doubt” and the phrase “proof beyond a

reasonable doubt.” Given the district court’s constant emphasis

on the reasonable doubt standard, the exclusion of the standard

from the Allen charge could not have prejudiced the jury’s

understanding of the level of proof necessary to convict Clayton,

so as to have affected his substantial rights--the outcome of his

trial. 

Even if we assumed plain error on the part of the district

court, Clayton can not show that the modified Allen charge

seriously affected the “fairness, integrity or public reputation”

of his trial. In the light of the jury’s discriminating verdict,

whereby Clayton was acquitted of one of the civil rights charges,

we cannot say that the district court pressured the jury into

returning guilty verdicts on the remaining counts that it

otherwise would not have reached. 

In sum, Clayton has shown no plain error with respect to the

district court’s modified Allen charge.

III
 

7U.S.S.G. § 3A1.3 (1994) provides that “if a victim was

physically restrained in the course of the offense, increase by 2

levels.”

10

A

We now turn to the government’s cross-appeal.

The district court concluded that because Freeman had been

lawfully restrained (handcuffed) during the course of a legitimate

arrest--a restraint that was separate from and not done to

facilitate the commission of the offense itself--the two-level

victim restraint adjustment, U.S.S.G. § 3A1.3, was not applicable.7

In its cross-appeal, the government contends that the

district court erred in refusing to apply the victim restraint

adjustment to Clayton’s offense level. The government argues that

the district court’s interpretation of U.S.S.G. § 3A1.3 is

contrary to the plain language of the guideline, which provides no

exception for the “lawful” restraint of the victim. The

government further argues that application of the guideline was

warranted because Freeman was handcuffed when Clayton kicked her

in the head.
11

B

The district court’s interpretation of the sentencing

guidelines is a conclusion of law that we review de novo. United

States v. Lister, 53 F.3d 66, 69 (5th Cir. 1995)(citations

omitted).

First, we find that the district court’s interpretation of

U.S.S.G. § 3A1.3, although reasoned and well considered, is not

supported by the letter of the guideline. Section 3A1.3 simply

provides, with two exceptions that are inapplicable here, a twolevel enhancement to the defendant’s sentence if the victim was

physically restrained in the course of the offense. U.S.S.G.

§ 3A1.3 (“if a victim was physically restrained in the course of

the offense, increase by 2 levels”). Furthermore, we think that

an underlying consideration in applying the guideline is that the

physical restraint of a victim during an assault is an aggravating

factor that intensifies the wilfulness, the inexcusableness and

reprehensibleness of the crime and hence increases the culpability

of the defendant. It is true, as the district court concluded,

that Freeman was not handcuffed to facilitate the commission of

the offense against her--Clayton’s use of unreasonable force.

Nevertheless, Clayton took advantage of the restraint Freeman was

under as she lay on the ground, handcuffed. She posed not the

slightest threat to him in this condition. She could not defend
12

herself against an assault, and could not flee from harm. Because

Clayton took advantage of this restraint and the particular

vulnerability of the victim, it seems to us that both the letter

and spirit of the guideline applies to impose an additional

sentence on Clayton, beyond the one mandated for his use of

unreasonable force. Especially in the light of the facts in this

case, we agree with the Fourth Circuit that the lawfulness of the

defendant’s restraint of the victim at the time the unreasonable

or excessive force occurs is not a concern implicated by U.S.S.G.

§ 3A1.3. See United States v. Evans, 85 F.3d 617 (4th Cir. 1996)

(TABLE, TEXT IN WESTLAW, 1996 WL 233056) (rejecting argument

U.S.S.G. § 3A1.3 enhancement inapplicable because handcuffing

incidental to lawful arrest).

We therefore reverse the district court’s ruling, vacate the

sentence on count two, and remand for resentencing not

inconsistent with this opinion.

C

The government further argues that the district court erred

in failing to add a two-level adjustment to Clayton’s offense

level for obstruction of justice under U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1, on the

grounds that Clayton threatened the witnesses prior to the federal

investigation of his civil rights offenses. 
 

8U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1 (1994) provides that “if the defendant

willfully obstructed or impeded, or attempted to obstruct or

impede, the administration of justice during the investigation,

prosecution, or sentencing of the instant offense, increase the

offense level by 2 levels.”

13

The government argues that at the scene of the January 13,

1994 arrests, Clayton warned several officers that they did not

see anything and that if he had to worry about them telling what

they saw, he did not need them working for him. These threats,

the government says, deterred officers from coming forward with

information to the FBI, thereby obstructing the federal

investigation. The government argues that the plain language of

U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1, which speaks of conduct occurring during an

investigation,8 does not actually require the attempt to obstruct

justice to occur during the federal investigation. It is

sufficient if Clayton’s threats were made for the purpose of

obstructing the administration of justice. Relying on United

States v. Barry, 938 F.2d 1327, 1334 n.8 (D.C. Cir. 1991), the

government argues that in 1990, the Sentencing Commission amended

the commentary to U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1 to extend application of the

guideline to conduct made unlawful by the federal obstruction of

justice statutes, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1501-1516. This amendment, the

government argues, “implies that the Sentencing Commission did not

intend to bar consideration of attempts to obstruct the

administration of justice solely because the obstruction occurred
 

9Application note 3 to U.S.S.G § 3C1.1 (1994) reads as

follows:

14

before the commencement of the investigation of the offense.”

Finally, although the government concedes that Fifth Circuit

precedent limits application of U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1 to conduct

occurring “during the investigation of the instant offense,” see

United States v. Luna, 909 F.2d 119, 120 (5th Cir. 1990), United

States v. Wilson, 904 F.2d 234, 236 (5th Cir. 1990), the

government contends that because the 1990 amendments post-date

these cases, the 1990 amendments--not our cases--provide the

authoritative interpretation of the guideline.

D

We cannot agree with the government’s proposed application

of U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1. The plain language of U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1

(1994) provides that “if the defendant willfully obstructed or

impeded, or attempted to obstruct or impede, the administration of

justice during the investigation . . . of the instant offense,

increase the offense level by 2 levels.” (Emphasis added.) We do

not dispute that the 1990 amendments extended the application of

U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1 to conduct prohibited by the federal obstruction

of justice statutes. See U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1, comment.

(n.3(i))(1994) (noting enhancement applies to conduct prohibited

by 18 U.S.C. §§ 1501-1516.)9 Indeed, we have previously held
The following is a non-exhaustive list of examples of the

type of conduct to which this enhancement applies . . .

(i) conduct prohibited by 18 U.S.C. §§ 1501-

1516.

This adjustment also applies to any other obstructive

conduct in respect to the official investigation,

prosecution, or sentencing of the instant offense where

there is a separate count of conviction for such conduct.

(Emphasis added.)

15

generally that conduct prohibited by 18 U.S.C. § 1512 triggers the

application of U.S.S.G. 3C1.1. See United States v. Greer, 158

F.3d 228, 236-37 (5th Cir. 1998), cert. denied, 119 S.Ct. 1129

(1999); United States v. Graves, 5 F.3d 1546, 1555 (5th Cir.

1993), cert. denied, 511 U.S. 1081 (1994); United States v.

Pofahl, 990 F.2d 1456, 1482-83 (5th Cir. 1993), cert. denied, 510

U.S. 996 (1993). Furthermore, we note specifically that

§ 1512(b)(3) criminalizes intimidation or threats made with the

intent to “hinder, delay, or prevent the communication to a law

enforcement officer or judge of the United States of information

relating to the commission or possible commission of a Federal

offense . . . .” Thus, it would seem that vis-à-vis application

note 3(i), which incorporates by reference § 1512(b)(3), the

guideline may be applied to conduct occurring before an

investigation begins.

Consequently, we acknowledge that there does exist an

apparent conflict between the plain language of U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1

and application note 3(i) that must be resolved. In resolving
16

such inconsistencies, we treat commentary to a guideline as akin

to a federal agency’s interpretation of its own legislative rules,

and it is therefore given controlling weight when interpreting and

applying a particular guideline. Stinson v. United States, 508

U.S. 36, 44-45 (1993). The Supreme Court has made clear, however,

that “if the commentary and the guideline it interprets are

inconsistent, in that following one will . . . violat[e] the

dictates of the other, the Sentencing Reform Act itself commands

compliance with the guideline.” Id. at 43 (citing 18 U.S.C.

§§ 3553(a)(4), (b)); United States v. Ashburn, 20 F.3d 1336, 1340

(5th Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 514 U.S. 1113 (1995). See also

United States v. Oritz-Granados, 12 F.3d 39, 42 (5th Cir. 1994)

(citations omitted). 

In any event, it seems to us the apparent conflict between

U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1 and its 1990 commentary can be reconciled without

declaring which must prevail over the other in this instance. In

short, the commentary properly interpreted creates no conflict

with the guideline. From the language of application note 3(i),

see footnote 9, supra, at 15, it does not automatically follow

that any and all conduct prohibited by the obstruction statutes

requires the application of the guideline. Furthermore, the

proper application of the commentary depends upon the limits--or

breadth--of authority found in the guideline that the commentary
 

10We note that our interpretation of U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1 is

inconsistent with other circuits who have previously addressed this

issue. See United States v. Lallemand, 989 F.2d 936, 938 (7th Cir.

17

modifies and seeks to clarify. Here, the guideline specifically

limits applicable conduct to that which occurs during an

investigation; application note 3(i) expressly provides that it is

describing only a type of conduct that is subject to the

guideline. We therefore conclude that conduct that violates 18

U.S.C. §§ 1501-1516 warrants application of U.S.S.G. 3C1.1 only

when such conduct occurs, in the words of the guideline, during an

investigation of the defendant’s instant offense. We agree with

the Tenth Circuit that the plain language of U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1

explicitly contemplates this temporal or nexus requirement. Cf.

United States v. Gacnik, 50 F.3d 848, 852-53 (10th Cir. 1995)

(conduct undertaken prior to investigation does not fulfill nexus

requirement enunciated in U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1) (citations omitted)

and United States v. Lister, 53 F.3d 66, 71 (5th Cir. 1995)

(“obstruction of justice [adjustment] involves . . . a temporal

requirement. . . .”). 

We also find that our reading of § U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1 is

entirely consistent with the Sentencing Commission’s most recent

clarification of the guideline–-a clarification, we add, that

takes precedent over prior conflicting judicial interpretations.

Stinson, 508 U.S. at 46.10 In 1998, the Sentencing Commission
1993) (noting “obstruction of justice can be set in train before

investigation begins”); United States v. Barry, 938 F.2d 1327,

1333-34 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (applying U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1 enhancement to

conduct occurring prior to investigation or prosecution of offense

of conviction).

 

11The 1998 Amendments were effective November 1, 1998.

 

12Amendment 581 provides in pertinent part:

The amendment also clarifies the temporal element of the

obstruction guideline (i.e., that the obstructive conduct

must occur during the investigation, prosecution, or

sentencing of the defendant’s offense of conviction).

U.S. SENTENCING GUIDELINES MANUAL, Supplement to Appendix C, Amendment

581 (1998).

18

amended the commentary to U.S.S.G. 3C1.1 expressly to provide,

inter alia, that “[the obstruction] adjustment applies if the

defendant's obstructive conduct . . . occurred during the course

of the investigation, prosecution, or sentencing of the

defendant's instant offense of conviction . . . .”11 U.S.S.G.

§ 3C1.1, comment. (n.1) (1998). The purpose of the 1998 amendment

to application note one was to clarify the point that we have made

here, that U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1, indeed, includes a “temporal

element.” U.S. SENTENCING GUIDELINES MANUAL, Supplement to Appendix

C, Amendment 581 (1998).12 To be sure, we are bound by this

amended commentary, Stinson, 508 U.S. at 46, and our authority to

give it recognition retroactively is without question. United

States v. Anderson, 5 F.3d 795, 802 (5th Cir. 1993), cert. denied,

510 U.S. 1137 (1994) (citations omitted). Furthermore, in the
 

13In reaching this end we note that the current, modified

version of application note 3(i) is found in application note 4(i)

of the 1998 obstruction of justice enhancement, U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1

(1998). Application note 4(i) provides in part:

The following is a non-exhaustive list of examples of the

types of conduct to which this adjustment applies. . .

(i) other conduct prohibited by the obstruction of

justice provisions under Title 18, United States Code

(e.g., 18 U.S.C. §§ 1510, 1511).

This adjustment also applies to any other obstructive

conduct in respect to the official investigation,

prosecution, or sentencing of the instant offense where

there is a separate count of conviction for such conduct.

U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1, comment. (n.4) (1998). Without question,

application note 4(i) poses the same potential conflict with the

plain language of U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1 as does note 3(i). We therefore

emphasize that notwithstanding our repeated reference to the 1990

commentary and U.S.S.G. 3C1.1 (1994), our holding today is not

limited in application to this dated version of the obstruction of

justice enhancement.

19

light of the 1998 amendments, our earlier cases interpreting

U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1 remain binding authority. See Luna, 909 F.2d at

120, Wilson, 904 F.2d at 236.

Thus, in sum, we cannot say that Clayton’s conduct justifies

application of U.S.S.G. 3C1.1. Although it is clear that Clayton

took immediate steps to suppress information concerning the

incident by intimidating and threatening the officers at the

scene, there is no evidence that Clayton continued these threats

once the federal investigation of his case began. We therefore

reject the government’s argument for application of the

obstruction of justice enhancement.13
20

IV

For the foregoing reasons, each of Clayton’s judgments of

conviction is affirmed. We AFFIRM the sentence with respect to

count three, we VACATE Clayton’s sentence with respect to count

two, and REMAND for resentencing on that count in a manner not

inconsistent with this opinion.

CONVICTIONS AFFIRMED; SENTENCE VACATED in part;

REMANDED for resentencing.
21

WIENER, Circuit Judge, specially concurring.

I concur in the foregoing opinion, including its analysis of

U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1 in sections IIIC and D and its conclusion that

the sentence enhancement provisions of § 3C1.1 are inapplicable to

obstructive conduct that occurs before the commencement of an

investigation. Nevertheless, I write separately to express my

consternation with what I perceive to be absurd results produced

by that rule, for which perception the instant case could well be

Exhibit I: A high ranking county law enforcement officer blatantly

commits a federal crime in full view of several subordinate

officers (who are presumably at-will employees) and immediately

threatens them with loss of employment if they break the unwritten

“code of silence” either by reporting the crime or responding

truthfully to investigatory questions about the crime; yet because

the perpetrator’s obstructive conduct at the scene of the crime of

necessity predates the commencement of any investigation, his

sentence is immune from enhancement for obstruction of justice.

I reluctantly agree that this result is mandated by the

Sentencing Commission’s 1998 amendment of the commentary to §

3C1.1 —— specifically U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1, comment. (n.1) (1998) ——

and the explanation contained in U.S. Sentencing Guideline Manual,

Supplement to Appendix C, Amendment 581 (1998) that “the
22

obstructive conduct must occur during the investigation,

prosecution, or sentencing of the defendant’s offensive

conviction.” I just cannot fathom why that should be! 

The plain language of § 3C1.1 clearly does not command such

a bizarre result under any known rules of interpretation. Whether

examined under legal canons of statutory interpretation or plain

English rules of syntax, the phrase “during the investigation”

should be read to modify the immediately preceding phrase,

“administration of justice,” not the more remote clause (“the

defendant willfully... attempted to obstruct or impede”). When §

3C1.1 is given such a faithful reading, Clayton’s warning to his

deputies immediately after the completion of his criminal conduct

was obviously and specifically intended to obstruct or impede the

facet of the administration of justice that would take place

during the investigation of his offense (and likely during

prosecution and sentencing as well). Indeed, if the subject

Guideline were meant to be applied as the Sentencing Commission

now instructs through its 1998 amendments, why was it not

originally written to read:

If the defendant, during the investigation,

prosecution, or sentencing of the instant

offense, willfully obstructed or impeded, or

attempted to obstruct or impede, the

administration of justice, increase the

offense level by 2 levels. 
23

Such a rearrangement of the various clauses and phrases of this

directive would dispel any doubt and justify the inclusion of a

“temporal element.” As it stands, though, the plain wording of

the Guideline should make the enhancement applicable to Clayton.

Still, I concede that the 1998 amendments condemn the actual

language of § 3C1.1 to the dustbin of careless drafting (or

careless reading) by construing that wording to innoculate the

obstructer’s sentence from being enhanced when his obstructive

conduct precedes the commencement of an investigation. 

Inasmuch as I am aware of nothing in the legislative history

of this Guideline that reflects an intent of Congress to exempt

obstructive conduct like Clayton’s solely on the basis of timing

vis-a-vis the commencement of an investigation, I urge that the

Sentencing Commission, or the Congress itself, either fix the

problem or explain this aberration for the benefit of sentencing

courts and those of us who must review their work on appeal.

Please enlighten us all: Is the panel’s analysis in the foregoing

opinion simply wrong? If not, what policy dictates the Sentencing

Commissions’s interpretation which, I submit, produces such an

anomalous result?