United States v. Elfred William Petruk
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 16564
| 8th Cir. | 2016Background
- In June 2012, Elfred Petruk assaulted Travis Behning after Behning tracked Petruk down for stealing his pickup; Petruk was later charged with federal carjacking and obstruction-related offenses.
- A jury convicted Petruk of carjacking and two counts of corruptly attempting to obstruct an official proceeding under 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2); on appeal the court reversed the carjacking and one obstruction count and remanded for resentencing on the remaining obstruction conviction.
- While incarcerated in 2013 on the federal charge, Petruk mailed two detailed letters and provided a script to a friend (Sara Jean Peterson) instructing her to recruit a person to pose as a fictitious “Sam” and give a false confession on a recorded jail phone call; he also attempted to conceal authorship by using another inmate’s name on the envelope.
- Peterson turned the letters over to ATF and testified for the government; Petruk’s plan was never executed and was unsuccessful.
- At resentencing the district court applied a two-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2J1.2(b)(3)(C) for an obstruction offense that was “extensive in scope, planning, or preparation” and denied a two-level § 3E1.1 reduction for acceptance of responsibility; Petruk appealed the sentencing rulings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 2J1.2(b)(3)(C) enhancement applies ("extensive in scope, planning, or preparation") | Petruk: his conduct was limited, unsophisticated, and unsuccessful, so enhancement not warranted | Government: letters, scripts, multiple communications, and concealment show extensive planning/preparation | Court: Affirmed enhancement — conduct showed extensive planning/preparation despite being ill-fated |
| Whether § 3E1.1 acceptance-of-responsibility reduction applies | Petruk: he clearly accepted responsibility (including a post-trial letter admitting guilt) | Government: he denied essential factual elements at trial and forced government proof; post-conviction remorse insufficient | Court: Denial affirmed — no clear pretrial acceptance; post-conviction admission too late; standard not met |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Bakhtiari, 714 F.3d 1057 (8th Cir. 2013) (upheld § 2J1.2(b)(3)(C) where defendant engaged in extensive planning to intimidate third parties)
- United States v. Spurlock, 495 F.3d 1011 (8th Cir. 2007) (describes rarity of awarding § 3E1.1 when defendant contests guilt at trial and explains deference to district court findings)
- United States v. Thunderhawk, 799 F.3d 1203 (8th Cir. 2015) (rejects claim that a trial-for-preservation-of-law issue supports acceptance-of-responsibility adjustment)
- United States v. Petruk, 781 F.3d 438 (8th Cir. 2015) (prior appeal reversing related convictions and framing the procedural posture for remand)