Opinion ID: 201336
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Sentencing Adjustment Based on Obstruction of Justice

Text: 47 Cheal challenges the two-level upward adjustment to her sentence under USSG § 3C1.1 for obstruction of justice, arguing that the court made no suitable findings at the sentencing hearing to support the adjustment. 9 This argument has no merit. 48 As usual, we review a district court's legal interpretation of the guideline de novo and review the court's fact-finding for clear error, giving due deference to the court's application of the guidelines to the facts. United States v. Mitchell, 85 F.3d 800, 813 (1st Cir.1996). USSG § 3C1.1 provides for a two-level upward adjustment where the defendant willfully obstructed or impeded, or attempted to obstruct or impede, the administration of justice during the course of the investigation... of the instant offense of conviction.... The adjustment's commentary advises that it applies to, among other kinds of conduct, a defendant who has given a materially false statement to a law enforcement officer that significantly obstructed or impeded the official investigation or prosecution of the instant offense. USSG § 3C1.1, cmt. n.4. At Cheal's sentencing hearing, the district court stated that the adjustment was primarily based on Ms. Cheal's conduct with the postal inspector, Keith. She did not follow his orders, the money was not returned, and the scheme continued at least for a period of time after that. It seems to me that does amount to obstruction of justice. 49 Cheal argues that we should set this adjustment aside because the district court failed to take direct testimony on this point and failed to make a specific finding that her actions significantly obstructed the investigation, in the commentary's words. In support of this argument, she repeats her claim here, made to the district court as well, that the postal inspector never gave her a copy of the laws she was violating and never told her that the laws prohibited her from receiving monies through private couriers like Federal Express as well as through the U.S. mail. 50 In fact, the district court did address these points at the hearing and quickly rejected them, saying simply: I understand that, and that objection is overruled. No more was needed, especially when the court had already adopted the whole of the PSR's factual findings, which thoroughly cover the details of Cheal's meetings with the postal inspector (and do not support her version of the encounters advanced in her brief). The district court committed no error by imposing the adjustment for obstruction of justice in the way it did. 10 51