United States v. Halliday, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 24985

Grand jury in the District of Utah subpoenaed Halliday for information about mink farm attacks; Halliday founded the Animal Defense League of Salt Lake City.
Halliday refused to testify, initially refusing the oath and answering 'no comment' to most questions; he later pleaded Fifth Amendment privilege to questions.
During interim periods, Halliday texted a related figure involved in the attacks, indicating coordination and the grand jury’s involvement.
Civil contempt hearing granted Halliday immunity for grand jury testimony; district court held he could not claim Fifth Amendment privilege and sentenced him to civil contempt, incarcerating him for 108 days.
A subsequent grand jury indicted Halliday for criminal contempt under 18 U.S.C. § 401; he pled guilty; guidelines § 2J1.1 incorporates § 2X5.1 to apply the most analogous offense guideline.
District court applied § 2J1.2 (Obstruction of Justice) as most analogous rather than § 2J1.5 (Failure to Appear by Material Witness); sentenced Halliday to 10 months with supervised release pending appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 2J1.2 was the correct most-analogous guideline	The Government argues for § 2J1.2 as most analogous; district court properly measured intent to impede prosecution.	Halliday contends § 2J1.5 is more appropriate since conduct involved failure to appear as a material witness, not obstructing justice.	District court did not err; § 2J1.2 properly applied based on intent to impede prosecution.
Whether Halliday's sentence is substantively reasonable under § 3553(a)	The sentence is reasonable given seriousness, history, and need to promote respect for the law.	A shorter term or probation would better reflect § 3553(a) factors and avoid unwarranted disparity.	Sentence affirmed as reasonable under the § 3553(a) framework.

Voss, 82 F.3d 1521 (10th Cir. 1996) (affirmed using § 2J1.2 when defendant obstructed grand jury prosecution)
Cherry, 572 F.3d 829 (10th Cir. 2009) (de novo review of guideline choice after factual findings)
Fortier, 180 F.3d 1217 (10th Cir. 1999) (guideline selection tied to factual bases)
Rakes, 510 F.3d 1280 (10th Cir. 2007) (de novo review to extent rests on legal bases; clear error for factual findings)
Mollner, 643 F.3d 713 (10th Cir. 2011) (standard deference to district court's application of guidelines to facts)
Marquardo, 149 F.3d 36 (1st Cir. 1998) (civil contempt plus criminal contempt sentencing considerations)
Gall, 552 U.S. 38 (S. Ct. 2007) (reasonableness review involves procedural and substantive components)
Beltran, 571 F.3d 1013 (10th Cir. 2009) (rebuttable presumption of reasonableness for properly calculated sentences)
Martinez, 610 F.3d 1216 (10th Cir. 2010) (abides by abuse-of-discretion reasonableness framework)