513 F. App'x 103
2d Cir.2013Background
- Butters pled guilty to possession of a firearm by a felon under 21 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2) and was sentenced to 70 months’ imprisonment.
- The district court imposed a two-level upward adjustment for obstruction of justice under U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1 based on Butters’s misrepresentation of citizenship during interviews with pretrial services and probation officers.
- Butters challenges the enhancement on grounds that it requires a specific intent to obstruct and that his statements did not relate to the underlying offense or related conduct.
- The district court failed to make explicit, specific-intent findings supporting the obstruction enhancement; the court’s colloquy did not suffice.
- Court remands for resentencing to allow explicit findings about intent and whether any statements were made with intent to obstruct justice with respect to the investigation, prosecution, or sentencing of this case.
- Record could support some obstruction inference, but remand is necessary for clear, reviewable findings and proper application of § 3C1.1.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 3C1.1 applies when citizenship lies are involved | Butters contends the lie is not tied to the offense or related conduct | Government contends lies affect bail and prosecution and show intent to obstruct | Remanded for explicit intent findings; not decided on the merits |
| Whether the district court erred by not making specific intent findings | Butters argues the court failed to specify intended obstruction | Government argues court’s record supports obstruction, need not be explicit? | Remanded to make clear, specific findings of intent to obstruct with respect to the instant offense |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Bliss, 430 F.3d 640 (2d Cir. 2005) (guidelines error review and obstruction standards)
- United States v. Khimchiachvili, 372 F.3d 75 (2d Cir. 2004) (relating lies to underlying offense for § 3C1.1)
- United States v. Bradbury, 189 F.3d 200 (2d Cir. 1999) (must have specific intent to obstruct; clear findings required)
- United States v. Brown, 321 F.3d 347 (2d Cir. 2003) (enhancement requires showing defendant’s conscious intent to obstruct)
- United States v. Reed, 49 F.3d 895 (2d Cir. 1995) (look to subjective intent of defendant; collateral effects not dispositive)
- United States v. Peterson, 385 F.3d 127 (2d Cir. 2004) (specific intent requirement for obstruction enhancement)