Opinion ID: 167472
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Material Hindrance

Text: 26 Bedford next argues that the government failed to show that his conduct materially hindered the official investigation or prosecution of the instant offense. As we pointed out above, however, Bedford in any event willfully obstructed the administration of justice by swallowing the evidence and by attempting to conceal the white matter that he regurgitated at the police station. The attempt to conceal the white matter by wiping it up with his red garment did not occur contemporaneously with arrest. Application Note 4(d)'s requirement of material hindrance applies only to conduct occurring contemporaneously with arrest. Since Bedford willfully obstructed the administration of justice by attempting to conceal the white matter at the police station, only the first part of Application Note 4(d) applies to his conduct in destroying or concealing or directing or procuring another person to destroy or conceal evidence that is material to an official investigation or judicial proceeding. . ., or attempting to do so. U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1, cmt. n. 4(d). Therefore, no showing of material hindrance is necessary under such a circumstance. 27 In any event, the threshold for materiality under U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1 is conspicuously low. United States v. Dedeker, 961 F.2d 164, 167 (11th Cir.1992); see also U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1 cmt. n. 6 (`Material' evidence, fact, statement, or information, as used in this section, means evidence, fact, statement, or information that, if believed, would tend to influence or affect the issue under determination.). Under this standard, Bedford's swallowing of the evidence and his attempt to conceal the white matter at the police station were material. It is self-evident that illegal drugs are material to any drug investigation or prosecution. In addition, sentences are largely determined by the quantity of drugs at stake. Bedford intended to destroy, and he did destroy some, of the most incriminating evidence against him. The fact that he later regurgitated some of the evidence, or that he was unsuccessful in concealing the white matter, is irrelevant. See United States v. Massey, 443 F.3d 814, 2006 WL 723449,  (11th Cir.2006) (The fact that Defendant was unsuccessful in her attempt to conceal the evidence, or even that the concealment was destined to fail is irrelevant.). It was, therefore, not clear error for the district court to find that Bedford's successful swallowing of the evidence materially hindered the official investigation or prosecution of the instant offense. 28 Accordingly, the sentence of the district court is 29 AFFIRMED.