Opinion ID: 2982658
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Obstruction of Justice Enhancement Challenge

Text: Wurzelbacher next argues that the district court erred in imposing the obstruction of justice enhancement because it failed to make factual findings as to whether Wurzelbacher’s payment of Howard’s attorney’s fees constituted obstruction of justice, given that Wurzelbacher had denied ever making any threats in order to impede the investigation. He argues that Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(i)(3)(B) bars the court from simply adopting the presentence report and instead requires the court to “actually find facts” and to “do so by a preponderance of the evidence.” We reject Wurzelbacher’s argument. Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(i)(3)(B) requires a district court to rule only on “controverted” matters. The obstruction of justice enhancement applies if a defendant “willfully obstructed or impeded, or attempted to obstruct or impede, the administration of justice . . . .” U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1. Though Wurzelbacher objected to the enhancement on the grounds that he never threatened anyone with the intent to impede the investigation, he admitted in the Statement of Facts forming the basis of his plea agreement that he “paid Howard money for his silence.” Numerous times we have found that bribing a witness to remain silent or to testify in a certain way supports imposition of the obstruction of justice enhancement. See, e.g., United States v. Withers, 405 F. App’x 951, 952–53 (6th Cir. 2010) (affirming the enhancement where the defendant sent a letter seeking to have a witness paid to at Wurzelbacher’s sentencing on October 17, 2013, even though Wurzelbacher’s conspiracy ended in July 2012. -8- No. 13-4261 United States v. Wurzelbacher testify falsely); United States v. Moore, 240 F. App’x 699, 712 (6th Cir. 2007) (affirming the enhancement where a defendant attempted to silence a witness); United States v. Bingham, 81 F.3d 617, 632 (6th Cir. 1996) (affirming the enhancement where defendant attempted to influence witness testimony); United States v. Moss, 9 F.3d 543, 553–54 (6th Cir. 1993) (affirming the enhancement where a defendant asked a co-conspirator to bribe another coconspirator to refuse to testify or to alter his testimony by offering him $25,000). Thus, where the district court had an independent, uncontroverted basis upon which to impose the enhancement—Wurzelbacher’s admission to paying Howard to remain silent—the district court did not err in declining to make factual findings regarding an alternate, controverted basis for the enhancement.