Opinion ID: 1435633
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Challenge to Obstruction of Justice Enhancement

Text: Kilbride asserts that the district court's application of a two-level obstruction of justice enhancement to his sentence was error. We review the district court's interpretation of the Sentencing Guidelines de novo and its findings of fact ... for clear error. United States v. Rivera, 527 F.3d 891, 908 (9th Cir.2008). Section 3C1.1 of the Sentencing Guidelines provides: If (A) the defendant willfully obstructed or impeded, or attempted to obstruct or impede, the administration of justice with respect to the investigation, prosecution, or sentencing of the instant offense of conviction, and (B) the obstructive conduct related to (i) the defendant's offense of conviction and any relevant conduct; or (ii) a closely related offense, increase the offense level by 2 levels. U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1. Among the examples of covered conduct described in the application notes is threatening, intimidating, or otherwise unlawfully influencing a co-defendant, witness, or juror, directly or indirectly, or attempting to do so. Id. § 3C1.1, App. Note 4(a); see United States v. Rising Sun, 522 F.3d 989, 996 (9th Cir.2008) (Application notes ... are treated as authoritative interpretations of the Sentencing Guidelines, unless they violate the Constitution or a federal statute or are inconsistent with, or a plainly erroneous reading of, the Guideline they are meant to interpret.). The district court found that Kilbride's securing of an order from the Mauritian court was an attempt to threaten or intimidate Law into not testifying at his trial and, therefore, warranted application of an obstruction of justice enhancement. We conclude the district court did not err in its application of the enhancement. The undisputed factual findings of the district court with regard to the timing of Kilbride's Mauritius lawsuit  that it was filed mere days prior to Law's testimony when the documents underlying the action were disclosed to the defense in 2005  fully support the district court's determination that the action was filed for the illegitimate purpose of preventing Law's testimony. Actions filed without legitimate purpose may qualify as unlawful harassment and hence constitute an attempt to intimidate or unlawfully influence a witness. See United States v. Lewis, 411 F.3d 838, 845-46 (7th Cir.2005) (upholding application of 18 U.S.C. § 1514 to enjoin a civil lawsuit filed for illegitimate purposes as witness harassment); United States v. Tison, 780 F.2d 1569, 1571-73 (11th Cir. 1986) (same). Accordingly, the district court properly concluded that Kilbride's lawsuit was obstructive conduct justifying application of the enhancement.