Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/114/464/493514/
Timestamp: 2017-11-24 03:51:45
Document Index: 79153854

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1623', '§ 1623', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 1', '§ 3', '§ 3', '§ 3', '§ 3', '§ 3', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 401', '§ 2', '§ 2']

United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Christopher Dickerson, Defendant-appellant.united States of America, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Christopher Dickerson, Defendant-appellee, 114 F.3d 464 (4th Cir. 1997) :: Justia
Justia › US Law › Case Law › Federal Courts › Courts of Appeals › Fourth Circuit › 1997 › United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Christopher Dickerson, Defendant-appellant.united S...
United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Christopher Dickerson, Defendant-appellant.united States of America, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Christopher Dickerson, Defendant-appellee, 114 F.3d 464 (4th Cir. 1997)
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit - 114 F.3d 464 (4th Cir. 1997)
Argued April 10, 1997. Decided May 28, 1997
18 U.S.C. § 1623(a) (emphasis added). Thus, materiality clearly constitutes an essential element of a § 1623(a) offense. "A statement is material if it has a natural tendency to influence, or is capable of influencing, the decision-making body to which it was addressed." United States v. Littleton, 76 F.3d 614, 618 (4th Cir. 1996).
This rationale is directly contrary to the Guidelines directive that the cross reference applies not only when a defendant, in fact, acts as an accessory, but also when he attempts "to assist another person to escape punishment for an offense." U.S.S.G. § 2J1.2, comment. (backg'd) (referenced in U.S.S.G. § 2J1.3, comment. (backg'd)); see also United States v. Jamison, 996 F.2d 698, 701 (4th Cir. 1993) (holding that cross reference applies when defendant perjures himself to protect a third party). For this reason, as Dickerson concedes on appeal, the district court erred in refusing to sentence him as an accessory after the fact because he did not act as such an accessory.
"Whether the underlying offense involved in perjury was 'in respect to a criminal offense' is a finding of fact to be resolved by the district court during sentencing." United States v. Colbert, 977 F.2d 203, 207 (6th Cir. 1992). Here, however, the facts regarding this issue are undisputed. The court unquestionably convicted Dickerson of perjury in "respect to a criminal offense," i.e., Jenkins' assault on Sparks. Accordingly, on remand, the district court must apply the cross reference and sentence him as an accessory after the fact "in respect to that criminal offense." U.S.S.G. § 2J1.3(c).
We cannot so hold. Determination of the proper underlying offense under § 2J1.3(c) is a factual inquiry for the district court in the first instance. See, e.g., United States v. Glover, 52 F.3d 283, 287 (10th Cir. 1995) (reviewing evidence supporting district court's finding as to proper underlying offense). Moreover, the facts with respect to what constitutes the proper underlying offense, unlike the facts as to whether Dickerson committed perjury in respect to a criminal offense, have not yet been fully developed.
When determining the "underlying offense," for purposes of the cross reference, a sentencing court need not look to the offense of conviction. See United States v. Pierson, 946 F.2d 1044, 1047 (4th Cir. 1991) (concluding that U.S.S.G. § 2X3.1 does not require "underlying offense" to be an offense of conviction), overruled on other grounds by United States v. Heater, 63 F.3d 311, 329-31 (4th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 116 S. Ct. 796, 133 L. Ed. 2d 744 (1996).1 If the underlying offense always constituted the offense of conviction, perjurers would be able to benefit from perjury that successfully persuaded a grand jury not to indict or a petit jury not to convict. We decline to adopt such a rule absent an express mandate from the Sentencing Commission.
On the other hand, we refuse to hold, as the Government has urged, that a district court must always find that the "underlying offense" is the most serious charged offense. We recognize that when several offenses may be applicable a defendant is "not entitled to select the least serious offense under investigation for purposes of applying the guidelines." United States v. McQueen, 86 F.3d 180, 184 (11th Cir. 1996) (citing U.S.S.G. § 1B1.5 comment. (n.3)--"where cross-referencing required, and more than one offense applicable, the most serious offense is to be used."). However, there may be occasions in which the evidence supports a finding that the offense of conviction, rather than the charged offense, constitutes the "underlying offense." For example, this may be the case if a prosecutor brings "charges, not in the good faith belief that they fairly reflect the gravity of the offense, but rather as a harassing and coercive device in the expectation that they will induce the defendant to plead guilty." ABA Standards for Criminal Justice: Prosecution Function and Defense Function (3rd ed.1993) § 3-3.9 at 76; see also Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742, 751 n. 8, 90 S. Ct. 1463, 1470 n. 8, 25 L. Ed. 2d 747 (1970) (noting that a prosecutor may "employ [her] charging and sentencing powers to induce a particular defendant to tender a guilty plea.").
The Sentencing Commission itself has recognized the difficulty with invariably relying on a "charged offense system." U.S.S.G. Ch. 1, Pt. A, intro. comment. 4(a). In its introduction to the Guidelines, the Commission stated that one of the most significant drawbacks of the charged offense system was "the potential it affords prosecutors to influence sentences by increasing or decreasing the number of counts in an indictment." Id. The Commission pointed out that "the defendant's actual conduct (that which the prosecutor can prove in court) imposes a natural limit upon the prosecutor's ability to increase a defendant's sentence." Id. (emphasis added). If we were to mandate that the underlying offense must always be the charged offense, as the Government argues, we would be eliminating this important "limit" on prosecutorial discretion.
Because " [t]he sentencing judge is in a unique position to evaluate a defendant's acceptance of responsibility," the Commission directs that "the determination of the sentencing judge" on this matter "is entitled to great deference on review." U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1, comment. (n.5). See also United States v. Castner, 50 F.3d 1267, 1279 (4th Cir. 1995) (sentencing court's decision on whether to grant a reduction for acceptance of responsibility "is a factual determination that we will not disturb on appeal unless it is clearly erroneous").
As to the district court's second reason, Dickerson did acknowledge both at Jenkins' criminal trial and at his own trial for perjury that he had lied to the grand jury. But simply admitting perjury does not constitute proof "by a preponderance of the evidence that [a defendant] clearly demonstrated recognition and affirmative acceptance of personal responsibility for his criminal conduct." United States v. Martinez, 901 F.2d 374, 377 (4th Cir. 1990). Although a defendant can remain eligible for a sentence reduction for acceptance of responsibility even when he demands a trial, this is only when "a defendant goes to trial to assert and preserve issues that do not relate to factual guilt"--such as a constitutional challenge to a statutory provision, or a challenge to the application of the statute to his conduct. U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1, comment. (n.2).
At least in part, Dickerson went to trial to attempt to prove, as he maintains again on appeal, that his lies to the grand jury were not "material."2 Because materiality is an essential element of a perjury offense, in asserting his lies were not material, Dickerson challenged his "factual guilt." Thus, although he acknowledged lying to the grand jury he never "truthfully admitt [ed] the conduct comprising the offense(s) of conviction." U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1, comment. (n.1(a)). For this reason, "he put [ ] the government to its burden of proof at trial by denying [an] essential factual element [ ] of guilt" and so is not entitled to an acceptance of responsibility reduction. U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1, comment. (n.2).
In Pierson, we based our holding on the fact that at that time, § 2X3.1 did not "expressly require a conviction of the underlying offense." 946 F.2d at 1047. Subsequently, the Commission amended its application note to § 2X3.1 to make clear that " 'underlying offense' means the offense as to which the defendant is convicted of being an accessory." U.S.S.G.App. C § 401 at 291-92. However, this note clearly relates to "the substantive crime of accessory after the fact," not to the situation here where the "guidelines merely borrow the formula in § 2X3.1 to treat a defendant who has perjured himself in relation to a criminal offense as if he was convicted of being an accessory." United States v. Martinez, 106 F.3d 620, 621 (5th Cir. 1997); see also United States v. McQueen, 86 F.3d 180, 183 (11th Cir. 1996) (noting that conviction is not required to cross reference charged offense). For this reason, the subsequent amendment to the application note in § 2X3.1 does not require any change in our holding
Dickerson also apparently elected a trial to assert that duress--fear that fellow prisoners would kill him if he cooperated with the Government--should mitigate any punishment. If this had been his only purpose in requesting a trial, he would not have forfeited the right to an acceptance of responsibility reduction--propounding a duress defense does not foreclose a finding of acceptance of responsibility. See United States v. Johnson, 956 F.2d 894, 905 (9th Cir. 1992) (claim of incomplete duress does not bar finding of acceptance of responsibility); see also United States v. Cheape, 889 F.2d 477, 480 (3rd Cir. 1989) (finding that district court erred in concluding that the jury's rejection of coercion defense precluded the court from finding coercion to be a mitigating factor)