Opinion ID: 2802267
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Resulting Guidelines Calculation

Text: Having determined that the district court did not clearly err by treating the Siegelman-Young-Bailey Sham Transactions and the Siegelman-Young Agreement as relevant conduct, we turn to Siegelman’s remaining arguments, namely that the district court erred in calculating the value of the bribe and in granting both an obstruction-of-justice adjustment and an upward departure for systemic and pervasive government corruption. Because these arguments are premised on Siegelman’s faulty assumption that the Siegelman-Young-Bailey Sham Transactions and the Siegelman-Young Agreement do not qualify as relevant conduct, we conclude that the district court did not err by: (1) accounting for the Siegelman-Young-Bailey Sham Transactions and the Siegelman-Young Agreement in calculating the value of the bribe; 16 (2) granting an obstruction-ofjustice adjustment based on the Siegelman-Young-Bailey Sham Transactions; 17 or (3) granting the systemic and pervasive corruption upward departure based on the 16 We note that the court failed to include the $500,000 connected to the Siegelman-Scrushy Exchange in calculating the value of the bribe. However, because taking this additional money into account does not affect the offense level, the district court’s oversight does not undermine our conclusion. 17 Because the Siegelman-Young-Bailey Sham Transactions satisfy § 3C1.1, we need not consider whether the additional conduct that the district court relied upon would also qualify as obstructive conduct under § 3C1.1. See Siegelman Resentencing Hr’g Tr. at 12–14. 25 Case: 12-14373 Date Filed: 05/20/2015 Page: 26 of 26 loss of public confidence in the government of the State of Alabama. 18 We therefore affirm Siegelman’s seventy-eight-month sentence.