United States v. Chatman, 952 F.3d 1211

On July 3, 2018, Tulsa PD officers approached John Chatman after noticing suspicious behavior; a van with mismatched plates was linked to him.
Officers found Chatman in the backseat; he refused to ID or exit, officers called for backup, and Sergeant Mike Parsons arrived with a pepper-ball gun.
As pepper balls hit Chatman, an officer yelled “He’s got a gun!” and Chatman fired several rounds, striking Parsons in the leg; officers returned fire and wounded Chatman.
Chatman made statements and gestures suggesting he wanted officers to shoot him (e.g., “Y’all are going to have to kill me,” tearful goodbye to girlfriend).
A jury convicted Chatman of felon-in-possession (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)), attempted obstruction of justice by attempting to kill a witness (18 U.S.C. § 1512(a)(1)(C)) (Count Two), and using a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence (18 U.S.C. § 924(c)) (Count Three); he did not contest Count One.
On appeal the Tenth Circuit held the government failed to prove the § 1512(a)(1)(C) intent element and remanded to vacate Counts Two and Three and resentence on Count One.

Issue	Chatman’s Argument	Government’s Argument	Held
Whether evidence sufficed to prove Chatman acted with intent to prevent Parsons from communicating to law enforcement (§1512(a)(1)(C) broad intent)	Evidence did not show a reasonable inference Chatman shot to prevent communication to law enforcement or federal authorities	Evidence and circumstances supported the jury’s inference of intent	Reversed — evidence insufficient to prove intent element under §1512(a)(1)(C)
Whether the sufficiency challenge was waived/forfeited on appeal	Preserved via post-trial motions and objections; merits should be reviewed	Argued Chatman waived/forfeited by failing to raise the precise Fowler-based argument at trial	Court found the intent issue was sufficiently preserved and decided the merits; did not rely on waiver
Effect on the §924(c) conviction (Count Three) tied to Count Two	If Count Two fails, Count Three must be vacated	Count Three stands only if the predicate (Count Two) is valid	Because Count Two failed, Count Three was vacated; remand for resentencing on Count One only

Fowler v. United States, 563 U.S. 668 (2011) (defines elements of §1512(a)(1)(C), including intent to prevent communication to law enforcement)
United States v. Poe, 556 F.3d 1113 (10th Cir. 2009) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
United States v. Anaya, 727 F.3d 1043 (10th Cir. 2013) (reversal standard for insufficiency)
United States v. Rufai, 732 F.3d 1175 (10th Cir. 2013) (rejects convictions based on piling inference upon inference)
United States v. Bell, 113 F.3d 1345 (3d Cir. 1997) (upheld §1512 conviction where killing aimed to prevent testimony/cooperation with task force)
United States v. Galvan, 949 F.2d 777 (5th Cir. 1991) (upheld §1512 conviction where victim previously cooperated with government)
United States v. Edwards, 36 F.3d 639 (7th Cir. 1994) (upheld §1512 conviction where defendants feared victim informing DEA)