Opinion ID: 997953
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Obstruction of Justice Adjustments

Text: Guideline section 3C1.1 provides for a two-level adjustment [i]f a defendant willfully obstructed or impeded, or attempted to obstruct or impede, the administration of justice during the investigation . . . of the instant offense . . . . At sentencing, Filippi contested only the obstruction of justice adjustment applied by the probation officer to the money laundering group. Defense counsel stated that [o]ur position is that the two level enhancement should only apply to the mail fraud group. On appeal, he maintains that the adjustment should not have been made in either group. With regard to the mail fraud group, 5 the issue is reviewed for plain error only. See United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732 (1993). For the money laundering group, the issue is reviewed for clear error because the district court made a factual determination that Filippi's attempt to obstruct the investigation extended to his money laundering activities. See United States v. Daughtrey, 874 F.2d 213, 217 (4th Cir. 1989). With regard to the mail fraud counts, Filippi argues that the adjustment was erroneous because he cooperated with the investigation and created the false corporate records solely so he could comply fully with the subpoena or for tax purposes. He suggests that, because he was not charged with any tax offenses, his conduct did not obstruct the investigation of the mail fraud offenses or any relevant conduct. He relies on United States v. Self, 132 F.3d 1039 (4th Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 118 S. Ct. 1573 (1998), which holds that offense as used in § 3C1.1 means the offense of conviction and all relevant conduct. Under Self, an adjustment is not warranted if the defendant obstructs the investigation of an offense committed by the defendant that is neither the offense of conviction nor relevant conduct to the offense of conviction. Id. at 1043. We find that the district court did not plainly err in making the adjustment because Filippi created the false corporate records in an effort to avoid tax consequences flowing from the mail fraud offense. Relevant conduct includes acts by the defendant which occurred in the course of attempting to avoid detection or responsibility for [the offense of conviction]. USSG § 1B1.3(a)(1). Filippi clearly was seeking to impede the investigation into his business practices and was taking steps to minimize his exposure to criminal penalties of any kind. Having failed to report the ill-gotten gains from the mail fraud, he obviously feared prosecution for tax offenses. Although he was never charged with any tax offenses, the creation of the false corporate documents was intended to frustrate the investigation of the mail fraud, which he reasonably feared might lead to a tax prosecution. Filippi makes a similar argument concerning the obstruction of justice adjustment to the money laundering counts. For the reasons explained above, the district court did not clearly err in finding that the adjustment also applied to the money laundering counts. Filippi's creation of the false documents was intended to obstruct not only a 6 possible tax prosecution, but the entire investigation relating to his overbilling, including his use of the illegally-acquired funds.