Opinion ID: 785438
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Increased Offense Levels Based on Obstruction of Justice for Hanhardt and Altobello

Text: 13 The court sentenced both Hanhardt and Altobello to a higher offense level based on a determination that both obstructed justice. This court reviews the district court's application of sentencing guidelines de novo. United States v. Williams, 272 F.3d 845, 864 (7th Cir.2001). The sentencing court's determination that a defendant has obstructed justice is a finding of fact to be reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard. United States v. Teta, 918 F.2d 1329, 1332 (7th Cir.1990); United States v. Jackson, 935 F.2d 832, 849 (7th Cir.1991). We find that the obstruction of justice enhancements applied to both Hanhardt and Altobello were clearly erroneous.
14 Hanhardt's trial was set only a few weeks after he had undergone testicular cancer surgery, for October 16, 2001. On that morning, his counsel asked for a continuance because of his client's inability to be in court. It later came to light that the defendant had attempted suicide by drug overdose and was in the hospital. Based on that information, the court found that Hanhardt was responsible for his failure to appear in court as required by his bond. The court issued an arrest warrant, staying it until October 20, 2001, when the defendant was due in court. If Hanhardt did not show up on the 20th then the warrant was to have been executed. 15 On October 18, 2001, the parties returned to court on the government's emergency motion to inform the court that Hanhardt had made arrangements to be admitted to an inpatient program at another hospital. The new hospital required him to stay five to ten days which would cause him to miss his scheduled day in court. The government argued that Hanhardt was intentionally arranging to violate the court's order to be in court on the 20th. The court ordered the execution of the warrant and set a trial date for the 25th of October. At that time, the court stated: 16 The court also notes that Hanhardt apparently had no intention of appearing in court on October 20th, as he was planning to be hospitalized as part of an inpatient mental health treatment program. This anticipated non-appearance causes the court to order immediate execution of the arrest warrant to ensure Hanhardt's appearance. 17 R239//6. 18 At sentencing, the court imposed a two-level enhancement of Hanhardt's offense level for obstruction of justice under U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1. The court based the enhancement on its finding that Hanhardt acted willfully and with the specific intent not to be present in court as ordered both on October 16 and October 20 and that he had the intent to impede the prosecution of his case. The court stated: 19 He voluntarily, knowingly, and with reckless disregard placed controlled substances into his own body. That he may have taken more than prescribed was his own decision. He did it alone. It was a voluntary act on his part. He caused the result. It was his intention then not to be in the courtroom to enter his plea of guilty or to appear for trial. That he may have other reasons in addition to those for doing what he did is not of major consequence. 20 Tr4/29/02//50-60. The court found authority for its ruling in the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. Section 3C1.1 of the guideline states: If the defendant willfully obstructed or impeded, or attempted to obstruct or impede, the administration of justice during the investigation, prosecution, or sentencing of the instant offense, increase the offense level by 2 levels. U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1. 21 We find that the court's decision to impose an obstruction of justice enhancement based on Hanhardt's attempted suicide to be clearly erroneous. A finding of fact is clearly erroneous only if, after reviewing the entire evidence, we are left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed. United States v. McGill, 32 F.3d 1138, 1143 (7th Cir.1994); 2 quoting United States v. Beal, 960 F.2d 629, 632 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 880, 113 S.Ct. 230, 121 L.Ed.2d 166 (1992). After reviewing all the evidence, we believe that a mistake has been made in this case. 22 We do not believe that an attempted suicide can be considered an obstruction of justice. In the United States v. McGill, we affirmed an enhancement because the district court had determined that the defendant had tried to escape rather than commit suicide, a finding that was not erroneous. 32 F.3d at 1143. Implicit in that decision is the understanding that suicide would not be an obstruction. Id. 23 The defendant argues that Hanhardt's attempted suicide reflects his specific intent to die, rather than his intent not to appear in court the following day. The U.S. Probation Officer explained that: 24 If the defendant's intention was solely to miss the court hearing, he could have simply failed to appear or even fled from this district. In this case, the defendant chose a more drastic and potentially fatal action. It is therefore the assessment of the undersigned that the defendant's legitimate, albeit wilfull, attempt to commit suicide transcends the desire to miss a court hearing.... 25 (HBr 31) (R362-17 at 48; R306 at 16). The nature of suicide does not lend itself to a clear understanding of an individual's motivation other than the obvious intent to end his life. We agree with U.S. Probation's characterization of the defendant's actions and reverse the district court's decision to enhance his sentence based on an obstruction of justice.
26 At sentencing, the court applied a two-level increase to Altobello's sentence based on an obstruction of justice enhancement provided for in U.S.S.G § 3C1.1. The obstruction of justice sentencing guideline at issue provides: 27 If the defendant willfully obstructed justice or impeded, or attempted to obstruct or impede, the administration of justice during the course of an investigation, prosecution, or sentencing of the instant offense, increase the offense level by 2 levels. 28 U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1 (1997). The government sought this enhancement based on unsworn false statements Altobello made to law enforcement officers in 1998. 29 On March 10, 1998, Altobello was confronted by FBI agents. After hearing a tape-recording of an intercepted conversation, Altobello admitted that his voice was on the tape, that he had done a bad thing. FBI 3.02, GSSS, Ex.C. (report summarizing FBI interview with Altobello). However, at that time, Altobello did not admit committing any other crime and denied criminal associations with certain individuals. 30 Because information regarding the extent of Altobello's involvement later contradicted his unsworn statements, the district court determined that Altobello had impeded the investigation and therefore obstructed justice. We disagree and vacate the enhancement. 31 The district court judge believed that there must be some consequence to what Altobello said or failed to say when confronted by the FBI agents in 1998. Tr. 62; App. 18. This court has held that the obstruction of justice enhancement does not apply to any and all obstructive conduct that a defendant may have attempted or committed. United States v. Polland, 994 F.2d 1262, 1269 (7th Cir. 1993). There is not a presumption in favor of an obstruction enhancement when a defendant makes unsworn, out-of-court false statements to law enforcement officers. In fact, Note 4(b) 3 states that making false statements, not under oath, to law enforcement officers is included in the list of examples of the types of conduct that, absent a separate count of conviction for such conduct, do not warrant application of this enhancement, but ordinarily can appropriately be sanctioned by the determination of the particular sentence within the otherwise applicable guideline range. U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1, Application Note 4(b) (emphasis added). However, if the defendant's false statement significantly obstructed or impeded the official investigation or prosecution, the obstruction enhancement may be imposed. U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1, Application Note 3 (1997). 4 32 Significant and actual obstruction or impediment must be shown by the government. See United States v. Shriver, 967 F.2d 572, 575 (11th Cir.1992). The government failed to establish that Altobello's unsworn statements significantly impeded its investigation. The government only offered the conclusory claim that Altobello's statements significantly obstructed or impeded the official investigation of Basinski, Hanhardt and the co-conspirators. (Government's Consolidated Version of Offense (CGV) 36-37). This was an insufficient basis for an obstruction increase. See United States v. Jackson, 935 F.2d 832, 850 (7th Cir.1991) (the government's brief statement that it `expended resources ... only to find out that Gines' information was misleading' does not itself suffice to establish that Gines hampered the investigation in any significant way). 33 In the government's supplemental sentencing submission, it essentially relies on the potential for Altobello's statements to have impeded the investigation, rather than evidence of actual impediment or hindrance. No government agents testified at Altobello's sentencing or otherwise say that his statements resulted in significant and actual investigative impediment. Consequently, we vacate the obstruction of justice enhancement from Altobello's sentence. 34 III. District Court's Denial of Downward Adjustments for Acceptance of Responsibility for Hanhardt and Altobello 35 At sentencing the court denied downward adjustments for acceptance of responsibility for both Hanhardt and Altobello. We review the district court's finding as to whether a defendant has accepted responsibility for his criminal activity for clear error. United States v. Taliaferro, 211 F.3d 412, 414 (7th Cir.2000). Whether a defendant has accepted responsibility is a context-specific inquiry. United States v. Frykholm, 267 F.3d 604, 610 (7th Cir. 2001); quoting United States v. Branch, 195 F.3d 928, 937 (7th Cir.1999). Upon review, the determination of the sentencing judge is entitled to great deference. U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1, Application Note 5. Absent an abuse of discretion, we will not disturb a sentencing judge's decision. United States v. Lange, 312 F.3d 263 (7th Cir.2002). We find the district court did not abuse its discretion in this instance and affirm the denial of acceptance of responsibility points. A. Hanhardt 36 Hanhardt entered a blind plea to the indictment on October 25, 2001, nine days after the case was scheduled to begin trial. He was the last of the five defendants then before the court to enter a guilty plea. His lawyer read a one and a half page statement to the court that admitted to the elements of the offense. After the government detailed the evidence that would have been presented against him, Hanhardt responded, I don't agree with everything he (Assistant United States Attorney Scully) said. Tr10/25/01//41. When the court asked Hanhardt whether he was pleading guilty to Count One as alleged in the indictment, Hanhardt responded, In its entirety, no, sir. Id. 37 Section 3E1.1 of the sentencing guidelines is designed to award a defendant who demonstrates contrition through an honest and full account of his offense conduct. United States v. Larkin, 171 F.3d 556, 559 n. 4 (7th Cir.1999). The sentencing court can require that the defendant provide a candid and full explanation of the circumstances surrounding the offense of conviction. United States v. Hammick, 36 F.3d 594, 600-01 (7th Cir. 1994). 38 In addition, the act of pleading guilty does not automatically entitle a defendant to the reduction. Id. ; U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1, Application Note 3. The sentencing judge is also required to look beyond formalistic expressions of culpability and to determine whether the defendant has manifested an acceptance of personal responsibility for his offense in a moral sense. Id. at 601; see also United States v. Beserra, 967 F.2d 254, 256 (7th Cir. 1992). Based on the foregoing, we affirm the district court's decision to deny Hanhardt's downward departure for acceptance of responsibility. B. Altobello 39 Altobello was denied a downward adjustment for acceptance of responsibility because he falsely denied the extent of his involvement in the theft conspiracy. Tr5/28/02//60-68. On September 26, 2001, Altobello pleaded guilty, admitting that his role in the enterprise was to provide information about traveling jewelry salespersons who came to his son's retail jewelry store, Altobello's Jewelers, Inc. Tr9/26/01//14-17. He admitted that the information he provided to Basinski included salespersons' names, the kind of merchandise they were carrying, the types of vehicles they were driving and the license plate for those vehicles, and how often they came to the store. Id. He also claimed that he had provided such information only on three salespersons in 1996, a period in which the government had substantial evidence including a recorded telephone conversation between Altobello and Basinski and telephone records showing substantial contact with Basinski. In other words, Altobello admitted only to that which was impossible to deny. The court believed the government's argument that Altobello had been in contact with the conspirators since 1993, offering information for the first Kashimallak robbery. 40 The district court judge denied Altobello's downward departure for acceptance of responsibility because he did not believe that he was truthful about the extent of his involvement in the conspiracy. There is no indication of an abuse of discretion, so we affirm the district court's denial of acceptance of responsibility. 41 IV. Two-Level Enhancement as to Hanhardt, Basinski, and Altobello for Theft from the Person of Another 42 Under 18 U.S.C § 3742(e), a court of appeals reviewing a sentence imposed under the sentencing guidelines shall accept the findings of fact of the district court unless they are clearly erroneous and shall give due deference to the district court's application of the guidelines to the facts. United States v. Mallon, 345 F.3d 943, 945 (7th Cir.2003). 43 The district court enhanced the defendants' sentences pursuant to § 2B1.1(b)(2) based on evidence of the circumstances surrounding two separate thefts. On June 30, 1992, Melvin Draftz, a traveling jewelry salesman was distracted by a bump from behind. Shortly after, he realized his briefcase, containing his $1.3 million jewelry line, was gone from the floor by his side. On May 7, 1994, Roland Naftule was similarly victimized when he was bumped from behind causing his bag of jewelry to slip from his grasp and disappear. 44 A. Factual Finding Regarding Theft from a Person. 45 The district court judge determined the facts warranted the theft of person enhancement provided for in § 2B1.1 of the sentencing guidelines. Theft from the person of another means theft, without the use of force, of property that was being held by another person or was within arms' reach. Examples include pick-pocketing and non-forcible purse-snatching, such as the theft of a purse from a shopping cart. U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1, Application Note 1 (emphasis added). 46 Whether or not the victims' bags were within arms' reach is a factual determination and is reviewed for clear error. See United States v. Mijangos, 240 F.3d 601, 604 (7th Cir.2001). We believe it is a reasonable determination, based on these facts, that the victims' bags were within their reach and so affirm the district court's finding. 47 B. Application of the Enhancement to Altobello 48 In addition, Altobello challenges the court's application of this enhancement to him because he claims he was not part of these specific thefts. He argues that the court misapplied the principles of conspiracy law. At sentencing, the court stated: 49 [It] was foreseeable that there would be theft from the person, and it was, therefore, foreseeable by Mr. Altobello that someone would take from the person of Naftule the jewelry that was contained in the bag that he had at arm's reach. He need not have known specifically the name of Mr. Naftule, but that other conspirators were personally robbing from the persons of others was clearly foreseeable to Mr. Altobello. And in fundamental Pinkerton conspiracy law, he is accountable. 50 Tr4/29/02//78. 51 Altobello persists that there was no evidence that he agreed to a theft from Naftule's person and therefore that theft was beyond the scope of his conspiratorial agreement. Altobello is incorrect. A defendant need not know of a co-conspirator's actions for those actions to be reasonably foreseeable to the defendant. United States v. Hernandez, 325 F.3d 811, 817 (7th Cir.2003). The court's finding that the circumstances of the Naftule theft were foreseeable to Altobello was not clearly erroneous and so to apply the enhancement to Altobello was not an abuse of discretion. 52