Court Opinion

ID: 9482172
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 08:42:35.041181+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:48:48.891564
License: Public Domain

WIDENER, Circuit Judge,
dissenting:
I respectfully dissent.
The majority devotes a substantial portion of its opinion to discussing whether the government has proven that the defendant was indeed an accessory after the fact. This discussion, I believe, is made necessary only by the majority’s decision to read into the relevant guideline an additional condition neither contemplated nor required by its content.
As I read section 2J1.3(c)(l) of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, a defendant (in the factual situation present here) who commits an offense involving perjury in respect to a criminal offense must be sentenced as if he were an accessory after the fact in respect to that criminal offense. Nowhere do I find the additional requirement, as imposed by the majority, under which the government must prove that the defendant in such a case was in fact an accessory after the fact, making necessary proof in this case of trying to protect not himself, but others by his perjury.
I would accordingly remand this case to the district court for resentencing.