United States v. Greig
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 9935
| 1st Cir. | 2013Background
- Greig was sentenced to 96 months for conspiracy to harbor a fugitive and identity fraud after pleading guilty to three counts.
- Bulger and Greig fled Boston in 1995 and traveled undercover under multiple aliases for about 16 years.
- Weapons and cash were found hidden in their Santa Monica apartment upon arrest in 2011.
- Guideline calculations gave base levels: group 1 base 30 with obstruction; group 2 base 16 with enhancements; final level 29, guidelines range 87–108 months.
- District court denied cap at 20 for harboring and applied firearm and obstruction enhancements; allowed victim-family statements at sentencing.
- Greig appeals on guideline calculations, firearm/obstruction enhancements, and CVRA-related standing of family members to speak.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether base level for harboring counts was correctly started at 30 | Greig argues cap at 20 applies to harboring only | Court properly treated Greig as more than harboring, due to other crimes and long conduct | No error; district court reasonably found more than harboring. |
| Whether firearm enhancement applied correctly | Greig contends no knowledge of guns; not reasonably foreseeable | Evidence showed awareness of weapons and avoidance purpose | No clear error; enhancement affirmed. |
| Whether obstruction enhancement based on asset misstatements was proper | Misstatements were honest mistakes | Statements were willful and material to bail | Applied; statements deemed intentional and material. |
| Whether district court abused discretion by allowing family victims to speak | CVRA rights not applicable to victims’ statements in this context | Court acted within broad sentencing discretion | Not an abuse of discretion; statements properly considered. |
Key Cases Cited
- Vega-Coreano v. United States, 229 F.3d 288 (1st Cir. 2000) (holds that more than harboring can justify higher base level under § 2X3.1(a)(3)(B))
- Jackson, 1996 WL 762917 (1st Cir. Dec. 19, 1996) (cited for framing inquiry whether defendant did more than harbor)
- United States v. Restrepo, 53 F.3d 396 (1st Cir. 1995) (willful obstruction enhancement for false information to pretrial services)
- United States v. Murdock, 699 F.3d 665 (1st Cir. 2012) (de novo review standard for guideline calculations; underlying findings reviewed for clear error)
- United States v. Thomas, 635 F.3d 13 (1st Cir. 2011) (standard of review for guideline application)
- United States v. Rivera-Rodríguez, 489 F.3d 48 (1st Cir. 2007) (guidelines and sentencing considerations)
- United States v. Vega-Coreano, 229 F.3d 288 (1st Cir. 2000) (reaffirmed non-cap for harboring in certain multi-offense cases)
- United States v. Patriarca, 948 F.2d 789 (1st Cir. 1991) (considerations of defendant's assets for pretrial release)
- United States v. Berzon, 941 F.2d 8 (1st Cir. 1991) (notice requirements and evidentiary considerations in sentencing)
- United States v. Biyaga, 9 F.3d 204 (1st Cir. 1993) (materiality standard for obstruction of justice)
- United States v. Feldman, 83 F.3d 9 (1st Cir. 1996) (materiality review standard in obstruction context)
- United States v. Pineda, 981 F.2d 569 (1st Cir. 1992) (material information relevant to sentencing)