Opinion ID: 77361
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Obstruction-of-Justice Sentence Enhancement

Text: 5 We review the district court's factual findings for clear error and the court's application of the sentencing guidelines to the facts de novo. United States v. Bradford, 277 F.3d 1311, 1312 (11th Cir.2002). United States Sentencing Guidelines (U.S.S.G.) section 3C1.1 provides for a two-level sentence enhancement where the defendant willfully obstructed or impeded... the administration of justice during the course of the investigation, prosecution, or sentencing of the instant offense of conviction. The guidelines commentary provides a non-exhaustive list of conduct to which this enhancement applies, including this conduct: 6 (c) producing or attempting to produce a false, altered, or counterfeit document or record during an official investigation;... [or] 7 (g) providing a materially false statement to a law enforcement officer that significantly obstructed or impeded the official investigation or prosecution of the instant offense. 8 U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1 cmt. n.4. The commentary provides a separate list of conduct which ordinarily does not warrant application of the section 3C1.1 sentence enhancement, including this conduct: 9 (a) providing a false name or identification document at arrest, except where such conduct actually resulted in a significant hindrance to the investigation or prosecution of the instant offense; 10 (b) making false statements, not under oath, to law enforcement officers, unless Application Note 4(g) above [requiring that the false statement significantly obstructed or impeded the official investigation] applies; . . . [and] 11 (d) avoiding or fleeing from arrest; ... 12 U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1 cmt. n.5. 13 The district court determined that Defendant's provision of false information to the police officers who approached him in the Virginia restaurant was a significant hindrance to the official investigation of Defendant's fugitive status. During the sentencing hearing, defense counsel objected, arguing that Defendant's false statements and identification did not cause a significant hindrance because it only delayed Defendant's capture by 24 hours. 14 To establish that Defendant's conduct resulted in an actual hindrance, the government must present evidence of what action it took that it would not have taken had [defendant]'s identity been known when Defendant gave false information. United States v. Banks, 347 F.3d 1266, 1271 (11th Cir.2003). The government presented evidence that ultimately a police helicopter, a tracking dog, and approximately fifty law enforcement officers were used to find Defendant — resources that would not have been expended if Defendant had been truthful about his identity when approached in the restaurant. The district court did not err in concluding that Defendant's false statements to investigating police officers created a significant hindrance. The section 3C1.1 sentence enhancement is applicable to Defendant's offense under the express terms of application note 4(g). 1 15 Defendant argues that, even if his conduct did create a significant hindrance, courts should not apply the U.S.S.G. section 3C1.1 obstruction-of-justice sentence enhancement when the underlying offense is escape. He contends the use of obstructive conduct to elude capture is inherent in the continuing offense of escape. 2 In United States v. Bradford, 277 F.3d at 1312, we applied a section 3C1.1 obstruction enhancement to the offense of escape where the defendant attempted to threaten a government witness while awaiting trial. 3 Because the obstructive conduct in Bradford occurred after the defendant was captured, that case is not dispositive of whether the section 3C1.1 enhancement should be triggered by obstructive conduct that occurred while the escape was ongoing. 4 16 The guidelines commentary specifically lists offenses to which the section 3C1.1 enhancement should not be applied unless a significant further obstruction occurred during the investigation, prosecution, or sentencing of the obstruction offense itself (e.g., if the defendant threatened a witness during the course of the prosecution for the obstruction offense). U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1 cmt. n.7. Escape is not one of these listed offenses. 5 And in contrast to two other lists in the commentary to § 3C1.1, this list of offenses that require a special showing for the obstruction enhancement to apply does not indicate it is non-exhaustive. Compare U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1 cmt. n.4, 5, & 7. Because the commentary to section 3C1.1 contains an exclusive list of offenses that the Sentencing Commission chose to exempt from the obstruction-of-justice enhancement absent a special showing, we consider it highly unlikely that the Commission intended — but failed to mention — that other offenses were entirely exempt from the enhancement. 17 In addition, escape — unlike the offenses for which the commentary specified special treatment — can be committed and continued without engaging in conduct expressly covered by U.S.S.G. section 3C1.1. 6 The commentary says that avoiding and fleeing arrest will ordinarily not justify an obstruction enhancement. See U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1 cmt. n.5(d). A defendant could therefore avoid application of the obstruction enhancement if he attempted to evade arrest and to continue his escape solely by staying out of public places and walking or running away at the sight of police. The use of false identification and statements is not required to commit escape. But such use makes it more difficult for law enforcement to locate an escapee than if the escapee is just running. 7 We therefore reject the argument that the offense of escape is exempt from application of the obstruction-of-justice sentence enhancement; the obstructive conduct penalized by the enhancement is not inherent in the offense. 18 U.S.S.G. section 3C1.1 and its commentary provide for a two-level obstruction-of-justice sentence enhancement where a defendant has made false statements during an official investigation that significantly hindered the investigation. The district court correctly applied the section 3C1.1 sentence enhancement under the facts and circumstances of this case.