Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rachel BAKER, William E. Baker, Charles Dewey Tobias, Jr., Richard H. MacLean, Jr., Defendants-Appellants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-05-15
Citations: 180 F. App'x 114
Docket Number: No. 05-10994
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rachel BAKER, William E. Baker, Charles Dewey Tobias, Jr., Richard H. MacLean, Jr., Defendants-Appellants.
Judges: Before TJOFLAT, BARKETT and HILL, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 180
Pages: 114–115

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rachel BAKER, William E. Baker, Charles Dewey Tobias, Jr., Richard H. MacLean, Jr., Defendants-Appellants.
No. 05-10994.
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
May 15, 2006.
Joseph Torres, Law Office of Joseph Torres, Oviedo, FL, for Defendants-Appellants.
Before TJOFLAT, BARKETT and HILL, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
A jury found all appellants guilty of conspiring to obstruct justice, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371, and corruptly influencing the due administration of justice, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1503. The jury found appellants Edwin Baker, MacLean, and Tobias guilty of witness tampering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(b), MacLean guilty of concealing an object to impair its availability to a grand jury, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c), and Rachel Baker guilty of perjury before a grand jury, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1623, and assaulting, resisting and impeding federal agents, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 111.
Appellants seek alternatively the reversal of their convictions and the entry of judgments of acquittal or a new trial. They present the following arguments, none of which warrants relief:
1. The indictment failed sufficiently to allege a federal offense.
2. The evidence was insufficient to convict.
3. The Government failed to produce evidence favorable to the defense.
4. The district court abused its discretion in refusing to disclose grand jury records to the defense.
5. The district court abused its discretion in allowing the jury access to certain tape recordings.
6. The cumulative effect of the court's errors denied appellants a fair trial.
7. The court denied Edwin Baker, To-bias, and MacLean them constitutional right to counsel.
8. At sentencing, the court increased appellants' offense levels, and thus their sentences, on the basis of clearly erroneous fact findings.
9. The court erred in imposing Edwin Baker's sentences consecutively to the sentence he was serving for tax evasion.
AFFIRMED.