Opinion ID: 4564550
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Atkinson

Text: Atkinson contests the District Court’s application of a two-level enhancement for obstructing the administration of justice. To be eligible for that increase, a defendant must (as relevant here) have “willfully . . . attempted to obstruct or impede[] the administration of justice with respect to the . . . sentencing of the instant offense of conviction.” U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1. While Atkinson was in prison awaiting sentencing, he allegedly stabbed Carl Hodge, a fellow prisoner, multiple times while the latter was in the shower. The proximate cause of the episode, according to Hodge’s testimony at Cruz’s sentencing hearing, was that Hodge came into possession of a cellphone Hernandez was using for ongoing illegal activities: bribing prison guards, selling drugs, and arranging a murder. Hodge began to share the phone’s contents with the Government. Cruz and Atkinson became suspicious, leading to the assault. 88 Atkinson does not dispute Hodge’s testimony. He argues, rather, that even if he had a motive to harm Hodge because of suspected cooperation, he could not reasonably have believed that Hodge would testify against him at sentencing. See United States v. Galaviz, 687 F.3d 1042, 1043 (8th Cir. 2012). Section 3C1.1 does not demand such a standard. Testimony at sentencing is only one means Hodge could potentially have disadvantaged Atkinson’s legal position. As the facts show, Hodge was cooperating with regard to contemporaneous events, disclosing potentially prejudicial material to the Government. To demand that Atkinson reasonably believed Hodge would testify against him is unduly limiting and beyond the text of § 3C1.1. “[T]he administration of justice with respect to” sentencing encompasses more than witness testimony. From that perspective, Atkinson’s enhancement must remain. His “instant offense” was among other things RICO conspiracy, and Hodge was suspected of (and indeed was) revealing to the Government information related to ongoing concerted illicit activities of at least Hernandez, Cruz, and Atkinson. That goes directly to the offense of which Atkinson was convicted and awaiting sentencing. The District Court, then, did not clearly err in finding a nexus between the attack and Atkinson’s pending legal proceedings.