Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/881/980/93789/
Timestamp: 2019-07-21 17:04:55
Document Index: 5474216

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1708', '§ 510', '§ 1708', '§ 510', '§ 1708', '§ 510', '§ 510']

United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Ralph Reginald Cain, Defendant-appellant, 881 F.2d 980 (11th Cir. 1989) :: Justia
Justia › US Law › Case Law › Federal Courts › Courts of Appeals › Eleventh Circuit › 1989 › United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Ralph Reginald Cain, Defendant-appellant
United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Ralph Reginald Cain, Defendant-appellant, 881 F.2d 980 (11th Cir. 1989)
US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit - 881 F.2d 980 (11th Cir. 1989)
Ralph Reginald Cain pled guilty to three counts of knowingly and willfully possessing stolen United States Treasury checks, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1708 (Counts I, II and III), and of retaining and concealing these three checks in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 510. (Count IV). On appeal he challenges only his sentence. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.
Appellant pled guilty to three counts of violating 18 U.S.C. § 1708 by knowingly and willfully possessing United States Treasury checks knowing them to be stolen and one count of violating 18 U.S.C. § 510 by retaining and concealing Treasury checks knowing them to be stolen. Testimony at appellant's sentencing hearing established that the checks of numerous persons on the carriers' routes had been stolen. In determining appellant's offense level under the Sentencing Guidelines in the pre-sentence report, the federal probation officer applied Guideline section 2B1.1 to Counts I, II, and III of the indictment. Under this section, the base offense level is four. Adjusting for the fact that undelivered mail with an aggregate value of less than $1,000 was involved resulted in an offense level of six for these counts. The probation officer then added two levels for appellant's attempt to obstruct the investigation by concealing the checks in his cap and throwing the cap under a parked vehicle. This resulted in a total offense level of eight for violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1708.
The probation officer applied Guideline section 2B5.2 to determine the base offense level for Count IV, the violation of 18 U.S.C. § 510. Section 2B5.2 directs that the offense level is determined by section 2F1.1 entitled "Fraud and Deceit." The base level for an offense under that section is six. Where more than minimum planning was involved or the scheme defrauded more than one victim, however, the minimum offense level is ten. Guidelines Sec. 2F1.1(b) (2). The probation officer added two levels for obstruction of justice, resulting in an adjusted offense level of twelve for Count IV.
Appellant first contends that the court erred in finding that he had obstructed justice under section 3C1.1 of the Guidelines. This resulted in an increase of two in his total offense level. The Advisory Committee Notes list "destroying or concealing material evidence, or attempting to do so" as an example of conduct that may constitute obstruction of justice. The trial court found that defendant was trying to destroy or conceal evidence and thus obstruct justice by throwing the cap containing the stolen checks under a parked car. This finding is not clearly erroneous. Appellant argues that traditionally obstruction of justice only relates to post-offense conduct occurring during the pendency of some judicial proceeding. We can find no such limiting principle in the Guidelines. Nor have other courts implied such a limitation. See United States v. Galvan-Garcia, 872 F.2d 638, 641 (5th Cir. 1989) (attempting to conceal marijuana by tossing it out of the window of vehicle during chase constituted obstruction of justice); United States v. Franco-Torres, 869 F.2d 797, 800-01 (5th Cir. 1989) (firing gun at federal agent and throwing it in attempt to hide it from investigative officers constituted obstruction of justice). Accordingly, we must affirm the judgment of the district court on this issue.
Defendant C was convicted on the following seven counts: (1) theft of a $2,000 check; (2) uttering the same $2,000 check; (3) possession of a stolen $1,200 check; (4) forgery of a $600 check; (5) possession of a stolen $1,000 check; (6) forgery of the same $1,000 check; (7) uttering the same $1,000 check. Counts 1, 3, and 5 involve offenses under Part B (Theft), while Counts 2, 4, 6, and 7 involve offenses under Part F (Fraud and Deceit). For purposes of Sec. 3D1.2(d), fraud and theft are treated as offenses of the same kind, and therefore all counts are grouped into a single Group, for which the offense level depends on the aggregate harm. The total value of the checks is $4,800. The fraud guideline is applied [ ] because it produces an offense level that is as high as or higher than the theft guideline. The base level offense is 6, and there is an aggravator of 1 level for property value. However, because the conduct involved repeated acts with some planning, the offense level is raised to 10. (Sec. 2F1.1(b) (2) (B)). The combined offense level therefore is 10.
Illustrations of the Operation of the Multi-Count Rules, Sentencing Commission Guidelines Manual at 3.18. In the above example counts 3 and 5 are identical to Counts I-III in this case. The statute which prohibits forgery and utterance (Counts 2, 4, 6, and 7 in the above example), is 18 U.S.C. § 510. This statute also provides the basis for Count IV in this case. We are persuaded therefore that Counts I-IV should have been grouped together under the Guidelines. Appellant's combined offense level, before adjustments,1 thus will be that of the count producing the highest offense level, Count IV. See Guidelines Sec. 3D1.3(b). Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the district court as to this issue and remand for resentencing in accordance with this opinion.