Opinion ID: 167934
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: O bstruction-of-justice enhancement.

Text: The district court, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1, enhanced Spencer’s offense level by two after finding that Spencer had obstructed justice. Section 3C1.1 provides that [i]f (A ) the defendant willfully obstructed or impeded, or attempted to obstruct or impede, the administration of justice during the course of the investigation, prosecution, or sentencing of the instant offense of conviction, and (B) the obstructive conduct related to . . . the defendant’s offense of conviction . . . , increase the offense level by 2 levels. Obstruction of justice under § 3C1.1 includes “threatening, intimidating, or otherwise unlawfully influencing a co-defendant [or] witness . . . , directly or indirectly, or attempting to do so.” Id. application note 4(a). There was overwhelming evidence in the record that Spencer threatened both the informant and his wife. The evidence presented at sentencing indicated that the Government informant helped arrange Spencer’s methamphetamine sale to an undercover officer. The informant was present when that transaction took place. To keep Spencer from discovering the informant’s role, police arrested the informant along with Spencer. At the police station, officers started to book the informant before moving him to the jail’s “release area.” After the informant sat in the release area for an hour, however, the guards for some reason decided not to release him. Instead, they returned him to the jail and placed him in an area where he and Spencer could see each other. W hile in that area, the informant saw -7- Spencer make a telephone call. The informant’s wife testified that Spencer called her from the jail and pretended to be a police officer asking about the informant’s release; during that conversation Spencer eventually admitted who he was and then threatened her by saying “[I am] going to get you guys.” After Spencer got off the phone w ith the informant’s wife, Spencer told the informant that “‘I just called your wife, and she told me everything.’” Spencer then threatened the informant directly: “‘I’m going to get you fucker. I’m going to sic[] these M exicans on you,’” referring to Spencer’s co-defendants Luis Perez and Isidro Angel, w ho had also been involved in the methamphetamine sale. This evidence is more than sufficient for a jury to find, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Spencer threatened the informant and his wife. Cf. United States v. Bradford, 423 F.3d 1149, 1161-62 (10th Cir. 2005) (reviewing constitutional Booker error for plain error and holding evidence was sufficient for a jury to find beyond reasonable doubt that defendant had obstructed justice). And that finding w ould support the tw o-level obstruction-of-justice enhancement. U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1, application note 4(a).