Court Opinion

ID: 2964160
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:21:34.242729+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:42:51.550916
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ____________________

        No. 95-2093

                                    UNITED STATES,

                                      Appellee,

                                          v.

             JERMAINE THOMAS, A/K/A JEROME SCOTT, A/K/A JT, A/K/A CRAZY,

                                Defendant, Appellant.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                              FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE

                     [Hon. D. Brock Hornby, U.S. District Judge]
                                            ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Selya, Cyr and Boudin,
                                   Circuit Judges.
                                   ______________

                                 ____________________

            Deborah L. Potter and Law Office  of William Maselli on  brief for
            _________________     ______________________________
        appellant.
            Jay  P. McCloskey,  United States  Attorney, George  T.  Dilworth,
            _________________                            ____________________
        Assistant  United States  Attorney,  and  Helene Kazanjian,  Assistant
                                                  ________________
        United States Attorney, on brief for appellee.

                                 ____________________

                                    June 25, 1996
                                 ____________________

                 Per Curiam.  Appellant-defendant Jermaine Thomas appeals
                 __________

            from  his sentence on the sole ground that the district court

            erred in enhancing his  base offense level by two  levels for

            obstruction of  justice. See U.S.S.G.  3C1.1.   "The question
                                     ___

            whether  the  scope  of     3C1.1  encompasses  [defendant's]

            conduct  is subject  to de  novo review."   United  States v.
                                    __  ____            ______________

            Moreno,  947  F.2d   7,  10  (1st  Cir.  1991).    Fact-bound
            ______

            determinations, however, are reviewed for clear error. United
                                                                   ______

            States  v. St.  Cyr, 977  F.2d 698,  705-06 (1st  Cir. 1992).
            ______     ________

            "The facts constituting obstruction of justice for sentencing

            purposes need only  be established by a preponderance  of the

            evidence." United  States v.  Mafanya, 24  F.3d 412,  414 (2d
                       ______________     _______

            Cir. 1994).

                 The  district court  found that  there was  a "shift  in

            prosecution  resources  and attention  from federal  adult to

            state  juvenile"  and back  again  as  a  result  of  Thomas'

            misstatements  at the time of  his arrest.   That finding was

            supported by the record  which included a financial affidavit

            filed  in federal  court on  the date  of Thomas'  arrest and

            documentation of  Thomas' presence in juvenile  court several

            days later.   The district  court did not  err in  concluding

            that  the  shift  in  prosecution   resources  and  attention

            constituted a "significant hindrance" within the meaning of  

            3C1.1, comment.  (n.4(a)). 

                                         -2-
                                         -2-

                 That Thomas  eventually was  indicted by the  same grand

            jury  as his codefendants, does  not preclude a  finding of a

            significant hindrance.   Prosecution resources  were diverted

            as a result  of Thomas' false  statements at the time  of his

            arrest,  requiring  the  prosecution  of  Thomas  to  proceed

            differently  than if the false statements  had not been made.

            See United States v. McCoy, 36 F.3d 740, 742 (8th Cir.  1994)
            ___ _____________    _____

            (affirming  two-level enhancement for  obstruction of justice

            where  "additional  effort"  was  expended  as  a  result  of

            defendant's use of an alias at the time of a prior arrest).  

                 The  cases that Thomas  relies upon are  inapposite.  In

            United  States v.  Manning, 955  F.2d 770,  774-75 (1st  Cir.
            ______________     _______

            1992), we held  that defendant's  use of an  alias and  false

            birthdate  at the  time of  his arrest  did not  constitute a

            "significant  hindrance"  where  it  was "unclear  [from  the

            record]  that  the  investigation  would  have proceeded  any

            differently or any faster had Manning [told the truth] at the

            time of his  arrest."  In this case,  by contrast, the record

            reveals that the federal prosecution of  Thomas was halted as

            a  result of his misstatements to the arresting officers, and

            recommenced  only  after  his  true  identity  and  age  were

            discovered.   See also United States  v. Bell, 953 F.2d  6, 9
                          ________ _____________     ____

            (1st Cir. 1992) ("there  was no showing or even  assertion by

            the  government [that  the  investigation or  prosecution had

            been impeded]").

                                         -3-
                                         -3-

                 Thomas argues that the enhancement does not apply to his

            case  because he did  not "willfully" obstruct  or impede the

            administration  of justice.  See U.S.S.G.   3C.1.  He alleges
                                         ___

            that his intent in lying about his name and age  was to avoid

            being  placed  in  an  adult prison,  not  to  avoid  federal

            prosecution.   Thomas'  conduct  appears to  fall within  the

            plain  language  of one  of  the listed  examples  of conduct

            meriting the enhancement  because he did,  and did knowingly,

            provide "a  materially false  statement to a  law enforcement

            officer that significantly obstructed or impeded the official

            investigation or  prosecution of the instant  offense."  Id.,
                                                                     ___

            comment. (n.3(g)).  On the other hand, there is case law that

            the  defendant  must  have  a  specific  intent  to  obstruct
                                           ________________

            justice,  "i.e., . . . . the defendant consciously acted with
                       ____

            the purpose of obstructing justice."  United States  v. Reed,
                                                  _____________     ____

            49  F.3d 895, 900 (2d Cir. 1995).   See also United States v.
                                                ________ _____________

            Gonzalez, 12 F.3d 298, 299-300 (1st Cir. 1993).
            ________

                 We need  not decide in  this case whether  this specific

            intent  requirement should  be superimposed  on  the explicit

            examples  given  in  the guideline  commentary,  because  the

            enhancement is valid even  on such a premise.   The guideline

            itself  imposes  the enhancement  for willful  obstruction or

            attempted  obstruction  of  "the  administration  of justice"

            during  the complete  proceeding  from investigation  through
            ______

            sentencing.      It   covers   not   only   obstructions   of

                                         -4-
                                         -4-

            "investigations," "prosecutions" or  "sentencing" but of  the

            entire  "administration  of  justice"  in  relation   to  the

            defendant's case so long as the obstruction occurs during the

            period specified.

                 Thus, the  defendant's use  of a  false identity  in the

            hope  of being released on bail is an obstruction of justice,

            see Mafanya, 24  F.3d at 415, because the  grant or denial of
            ___ _______

            bail is part of the process.  A determination as to whether a

            defendant  should  be  held in  an  adult  facility  or in  a

            juvenile  detention seems to us  scarcely less a  part of the

            administration  of   justice   and  involves   policies   and

            consequences that are far from trivial.  Since on Thomas' own

            version of events  he did  have a specific  intent to  affect

            this choice by lies as to his  age, we think that he had  the

            requisite specific intent  to obstruct the administration  of

            justice, even assuming that something beyond  conduct falling

            within the commentary is required.

                 Affirmed.  See Local R. 27.1.
                 ________   ___

                                         -5-
                                         -5-