Opinion ID: 691027
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Obstruction of Justice & Acceptance of Responsibility

Text: 42 Finally, Janus contends that the district court erred in enhancing his offense level by two for obstruction of justice pursuant to United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual Sec. 3C1.1, and by failing to grant a two-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility pursuant to USSG Sec. 3E1.1. Once again, however, the defendants have failed to include and reference the portion of the record wherein their objections, properly preserving these issues for appeal, may be found. Because this is required by Tenth Circuit Rules 10.3.2(a) and 28.2(c), (d), we leave the district court's determination undisturbed. See Jetcraft, 16 F.3d at 366; McGinnis, 978 F.2d at 1201. 43 Assuming arguendo that these sentencing issues were properly presented, we would reach the same conclusion. With regards to the obstruction of justice issue, the guidelines require a two-point increase [i]f the defendant willfully obstructed or impeded, or attempted to obstruct or impede, the administration of justice during the investigation, prosecution, or sentencing of the instant offense. USSG Sec. 3C1.1. We review the district court's factual determinations as to the obstruction of justice under the clearly erroneous standard, Hollis, 971 F.2d at 1460; United States v. Urbanek, 930 F.2d 1512, 1514 (10th Cir.1991), and we review de novo questions involving legal interpretations of the Sentencing Guidelines. United States v. Gardiner, 931 F.2d 33, 34 (10th Cir.1991); United States v. Davis, 912 F.2d 1210, 1211 (10th Cir.1990). 44 The district court gave two reasons for the enhancement. First, [Janus] removed items of merchandise from the premises of his business after receiving information that other businesses had been raided and, expecting an imminent raid on his premises, Janus wished to conceal items of alleged paraphernalia which might be seized. R. Vol. 1, Doc. 46 at 2. Second, regarding the marijuana growing charge, he uprooted plants from his indoor garden and attempted to conceal them in the bottom drawer of a dresser. Id. Based on our review of the record, we cannot conclude that these factual findings are clearly erroneous. Having made these findings, the district court correctly applied the guidelines. The guidelines commentary makes clear that the enhancement was intended to apply where a defendant engages in destroying or concealing ... evidence that is material to an official investigation ... (e.g., shredding a document or destroying ledgers upon learning that an official investigation has commenced or is about to commence), or attempting to do so. USSG Sec. 3C1.1 Application note 3(d). This is precisely what the district court found to have happened here. Therefore, we find no error. 45 Regarding the argument that Janus was improperly denied a two point downward adjustment for his acceptance of responsibility, the guidelines provide that the offense level should be reduced [i]f the defendant clearly demonstrates acceptance of responsibility for his offense. USSG Sec. 3E1.1 The district court's determination of acceptance of responsibility is a question of fact that is reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard. Hollis, 971 F.2d at 1459; United States v. Hernandez, 967 F.2d 456, 459 (10th Cir.1992); United States v. Whitehead, 912 F.2d 448, 451 (10th Cir.1990). As such, the trial court's determination of whether Janus has accepted responsibility is subject to great deference on review and should not be disturbed unless it is without foundation. United States v. Amos, 984 F.2d 1067, 1071-72 (10th Cir.1993). Janus argues that this is an instance where a defendant who goes to trial nonetheless should receive an adjustment of acceptance of responsibility because he went to trial primarily to preserve an argument that the drug paraphernalia statute is unconstitutional. See USSG Sec. 3E1.1, Application note 2. The district court judge, however, reached a contrary conclusion: I do not believe [Mr. Janus] ... went to trial only to preserve the constitutional point. His statement at sentencing suggests a continued belief that he did nothing wrong and indicates that his main regret is the fact that he got caught. R.Vol. 1, Doc. 46 at 2. Having reviewed the record, we conclude that the denial of reduction for defendant's alleged acceptance of responsibility was not clearly erroneous. 46 The judgment of conviction and sentence imposed by the district court are AFFIRMED.