Opinion ID: 3059581
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Capshaw’s Motions for a Judgment of Acquittal

Text: Defendant Capshaw moved for a judgment of acquittal after the government rested its case and again after the close of evidence. Capshaw argued that the government failed to present evidence that between October 1 and 29, 2009, Capshaw had used the telephone with the intent to commit murder because the substance of the phone calls was either not related to the plot, or related to Capshaw’s attempts to thwart the plot. Capshaw argued that any use of the telephones between October 29 and 30 was at the direction of the government. The district court denied Capshaw’s motions. The jury convicted Capshaw of violating 18 U.S.C. § 1958. After conviction, Capshaw filed another motion for judgment of acquittal or, in the alternative, a motion for new trial, arguing, inter alia, that the government had not presented sufficient evidence that Capshaw had “used a facility of interstate commerce while it had some nexus to interstate commerce,” and that even if it had, the government had “manufactured jurisdiction” by using a government informant to make phone calls to facilitate the plot. Capshaw also filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Criminal 6 Procedure 12(b)(3)(B). The district court denied these motions and Capshaw’s subsequent motion for reconsideration. D. Sentencing The presentence investigation report (“PSI”) recommended a base offense level of 37, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2A1.5(a), and a 2-level enhancement for obstruction of justice, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1, because Capshaw committed perjury during his trial. With a total offense level of 39 and a criminal history category of I, the resulting advisory guidelines range was 262 to 327 months’ imprisonment. However, because the statutory maximum sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 1958 is 120 months, Capshaw’s advisory guidelines range became 120 months. See U.S.S.G. § 5G1.1(a). Capshaw objected to the obstruction of justice enhancement and the PSI’s statement that he committed perjury. The district court overruled Capshaw’s objection and determined that the 2-point enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1 was proper, stating: To believe that you were operating in an effort to assist law enforcement in arresting individuals or an individual who was going to do harm to your estranged wife, I would have expected to hear testimony that you had done something to document your efforts so that you could turn that over to law enforcement to support your version of these facts. I heard no such testimony. I heard no evidence that you had done anything to even document that you had a conversation with the person who was 7 hired. I also didn’t hear any testimony that you had done anything which would have left the commission of the act in limbo until you could have gone to law enforcement, contacted them, and arranged for some type of stakeout and then done the final act, such as pay the money or make the phone call or do whatever you were going to – a person would have done under those circumstances to put in motion the final version of this crime. The district court adopted the PSI’s factual statements and guidelines calculations, determined that Capshaw’s guidelines range was 120 months and sentenced Capshaw to 120 months’ imprisonment. Capshaw filed this appeal.