United States v. Albert Andrews, III
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 18924
| 4th Cir. | 2015Background
- On March 27, 2011, Albert Lee Andrews robbed a Domino’s Pizza in Kannapolis, NC, at gunpoint; police later found items linking him to the scene (wallets, cell phone with local calls, DNA on a cap, vehicle registration).
- Andrews was tried by jury on Hobbs Act robbery (18 U.S.C. §1951) and a §924(c) firearm charge; he pleaded not guilty, invoked a jury trial, and did not testify.
- Defense announced alibi witnesses (girlfriend Jerrika Hunter and her mother Monica Moffet) in pretrial filings and opening statement; both testified at trial that Andrews was home that night. Another witness testified Andrews admitted the robbery. Jury convicted.
- On remand for resentencing (this Court previously vacated career‑offender status), probation calculated offense level and the government sought a 2‑level obstruction enhancement under U.S.S.G. §3C1.1 for knowingly presenting false testimony. District court applied the enhancement, finding Andrews knew of and allowed false alibi testimony.
- Andrews appealed the §3C1.1 enhancement, arguing (among other claims) that it penalized his silence and implicated constitutional rights; the Fourth Circuit reviewed whether the district court’s factual finding of willful obstruction was clearly erroneous.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Andrews) | Defendant's Argument (Government) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §3C1.1 obstruction enhancement was properly applied for presenting false alibi testimony | Enhancement improper because district court failed to make required factual findings and effectively punished silence/right to remain silent | Enhancement proper: district court reasonably found Andrews knew of and facilitated false testimony; §3C1.1 covers aiding/abetting procurement of false testimony | Affirmed: enhancement upheld; district court’s finding of willful obstruction not clearly erroneous |
| Whether enhancement impermissibly penalized exercise of Fifth Amendment right to remain silent | Enhancement penalized Andrews for not testifying and for remaining silent during witnesses’ testimony | No Fifth Amendment violation; pressure to rebut adverse evidence does not make enhancement unconstitutional where defendant knowingly procured false testimony | Rejected: no Fifth Amendment violation in these circumstances |
| Whether district court needed explicit finding that defendant procured perjury to apply enhancement | Required explicit finding to support perjury-based enhancement | §3C1.1 may rest on broader finding of willful obstruction; procurement finding not strictly necessary here because court found willful obstruction | Held: procurement finding not required where district court finds willful obstruction supported by evidence |
| Whether defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel or right to present a defense was violated by enhancement | Enhancement intrudes on right to counsel and to present witnesses | No violation where counsel represented defendant and court did not probe privileged communications; right to present witnesses does not include presenting false testimony | Rejected: constitutional rights not violated by applying §3C1.1 here |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Dunnigan, 507 U.S. 87 (Sup. Ct.) (district courts must establish factual predicates for perjury when basing obstruction finding on perjury)
- United States v. O’Brien, 560 U.S. 218 (Sup. Ct.) (government bears burden by preponderance to support §3C1.1 enhancement)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (Sup. Ct.) (district courts have fact-finding advantage at sentencing)
- United States v. Bumpers, 705 F.3d 168 (4th Cir.) (deference to district court factfinding in sentencing)
- United States v. Perez, 661 F.3d 189 (4th Cir.) (§3C1.1 requires finding of willfulness; courts must state factual predicates)
- United States v. Jones, 308 F.3d 425 (4th Cir.) (elements of perjury: false testimony, materiality, willful intent)
- United States v. Smith, 62 F.3d 641 (4th Cir.) (reversal where district court failed to make necessary factual findings for §3C1.1)
- Miller v. Fenton, 474 U.S. 104 (Sup. Ct.) (deference to trial court factfinding where institutionally better positioned)
- Nix v. Whiteside, 475 U.S. 157 (Sup. Ct.) (right to present a defense does not include presenting known false testimony)
- Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14 (Sup. Ct.) (right to call witnesses is fundamental)
- United States v. Butler, 211 F.3d 826 (4th Cir.) (discussion of silence and burden to rebut adverse trial evidence)