United States v. Edward Burgess, Jr.
22f4th680
| 7th Cir. | 2022Background
- On December 7, 2018 Burgess burned the apartment he shared with his girlfriend, rendering the family homeless; he fled and later (April 15, 2019) robbed a Metro PCS store at gunpoint.
- Milwaukee police arrested Burgess on April 19, 2019; the government indicted him for arson (Count I), felon-in-possession (Count II, later dismissed), Hobbs Act robbery (Count III), and use of a firearm during a robbery (Count IV).
- The government obtained a magistrate-judge no-contact order (May 14, 2019) after evidence Burgess, while jailed, repeatedly contacted and urged his girlfriend Howard not to cooperate; Burgess nevertheless continued contacting her while the suppression motion was pending.
- At the suppression hearing Burgess testified he never left his sister’s house before arrest; officers (corroborated by radio/audio evidence) testified he exited to take out trash; the magistrate and district court credited the officers and rejected Burgess’s testimony.
- The PSR recommended a 2-level U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1 obstruction enhancement based on (1) alleged perjury at the suppression hearing and (2) repeated violations of the no-contact order that, the government argued, were attempts to influence Howard; the district court adopted the PSR and applied the enhancement at sentencing.
- Burgess (pro se at sentencing) pleaded guilty to Counts III and IV, received a within-guidelines sentence, and appealed solely challenging the § 3C1.1 enhancement for Count III.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court properly applied a 2-level § 3C1.1 obstruction enhancement to Count III | Burgess: the district court’s factual findings do not support perjury or no-contact bases for § 3C1.1 | Government: record and PSR show Burgess continued threatening/encouraging Howard to lie and violated the no-contact order while her testimony was relevant; enhancement supported by preponderance | Affirmed. On plain-error review the court found the PSR and adopted findings preponderantly show Burgess violated the no-contact order to unlawfully influence a witness, so § 3C1.1 was properly applied; court did not reach perjury basis. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Galbraith, 200 F.3d 1006 (7th Cir. 2000) (district court may adopt PSR findings at sentencing when defendant does not object)
- United States v. Strode, 552 F.3d 630 (7th Cir. 2009) (§ 3C1.1 covers efforts to influence or intimidate witnesses)
- United States v. Law, 990 F.3d 1058 (7th Cir. 2021) (same—obstruction includes witness influence in related-offense context)
- United States v. Brown, 843 F.3d 738 (7th Cir. 2016) (government bears preponderance burden to prove § 3C1.1 enhancement)
- United States v. Clark, 935 F.3d 558 (7th Cir. 2019) (distinguishing waiver and forfeiture; plain-error standard when defendant negligently fails to object)
- United States v. Hammond, 996 F.3d 374 (7th Cir. 2021) (caution in treating in-court silence as intentional relinquishment of rights)
- United States v. Long, 639 F.3d 293 (7th Cir. 2011) (adoption of PSR findings in district court’s statement of reasons)