Opinion ID: 778214
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Defendant Dunham's appeal

Text: 10 Dunham argues that the District Court improperly enhanced his guideline offense level by two levels for obstruction of justice. The United States Sentencing Guidelines (U.S.S.G.) discuss enhancements for obstruction of justice in § 3C1.1. We review de novo a district court's application of U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1. United States v. McDonald , 165 F.3d 1032, 1035 (6th Cir.1999). 11 U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1 provides, in pertinent part, that: 12 If (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 (i) the defendant's offense of conviction and any relevant conduct; ... increase the offense level by 2 levels. 13 U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 3C1.1 (2000) (emphasis added). U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1 requires the government to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant `willfully obstructed or impeded, or attempted to obstruct or impede, the administration of justice during the investigation.' United States v. Parrott , 148 F.3d 629, 635 (6th Cir.1998). 14 Dunham argues that the government failed to satisfy its burden under the preponderance of evidence standard because it did not articulate specific facts that would support the conclusion that his failure to comply with the grand jury subpoena was willful. Absent these specific facts, Dunham argues that the District Court erred in enhancing his offense level for obstruction of justice. We find Dunham's argument to be unconvincing. We hold that when a defendant has provided no adequate justification as to why he was unable to comply with a grand jury subpoena, the defendant's failure to appear is, by itself, sufficient to satisfy the government's burden that defendant willfully obstructed or impeded the administration of justice. See United States v. Maccado , 225 F.3d 766, 771 (D.C.Cir.2000) (holding that there are few better examples of a classic obstruction of justice than a defendant who refuses to give handwriting samples when compelled by subpoena [to do so]); see also United States v. Brazel , 102 F.3d 1120 (11th Cir.1997); United States v. Ruth , 65 F.3d 599 (7th Cir.1995); United States v. Reyes , 908 F.2d 281 (8th Cir. 1990). 15 There is no dispute that Dunham was properly served with a federal grand jury subpoena requesting handwriting exemplars and photographs of his tattoos, and that he disregarded the subpoena. Even Dunham concedes this fact in his brief: [I]t is indisputable that Dunham received a subpoena to appear before the grand jury, and it is indisputable that he failed to appear. (Dunham's Br. at 14). We thus conclude that the District Court was correct in enhancing Dunham's offense level by two levels for obstruction of justice.