United States v. James Nduribe
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 203
| 7th Cir. | 2013Background
- Defendant pleaded guilty to a heroin offense and received 116 months, within the guidelines with a two-level obstruction increase.
- The two-level enhancement came from USSG 3C1.1 for willfully obstructing or impeding the administration of justice.
- Defendant delayed arrest for five years, traveling internationally and using aliases to avoid prosecution and extradition.
- The government argues the delay burdened law enforcement and justified the enhancement; defendant argues it was merely flight.
- Guideline notes (including Note 5(D)) provide exceptions where flight ordinarily does not warrant the increase.
- Court discusses whether application note (D) should be read narrowly or broadly and contrasts with prior cases.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether flight from arrest constitutes obstruction of justice under USSG 3C1.1 | Nduribe’s five-year evasion impeded justice and justified enhancement | Flight alone not obstruction unless hindrance to investigation/prosecution shown | Yes; flight constitutes obstruction given burden on investigation and cost to prosecution |
| Whether application note D limits the enhancement for fleeing arrest | Note D should be read broadly to cover calculated evasion | Note D narrowly limits obstruction for fleeing arrest | Note D cannot salvage a fortuitous non-obstruction reading; flight can justify enhancement |
| Whether the district court properly applied the enhancement given conduct was deliberate over years | Five-year evasion shows deliberate obstruction | Evasion occurred but should be evaluated under governing standards | The enhancement properly applied given deliberate, prolonged evasion |
| Role of prior cases (e.g., Draves, Bliss) in interpreting obstruction | Higher bar from some cases supports obstruction | Some cases require greater showing of hindrance; not uniformly applicable | Draves distinguished; Bliss criticized but not controlling; standard remains obstruction when hindrance is present |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Kashamu, 656 F.3d 679 (7th Cir. 2011) (relevance of extradition and prolonged evasion to obstruction)
- United States v. Arceo, 535 F.3d 679 (7th Cir. 2008) (fleeing jurisdiction can constitute obstruction even if panic is involved)
- United States v. Draves, 103 F.3d 1328 (7th Cir. 1997) (distinguish between panic flight and calculated evasion; notes limitations)
- United States v. Bliss, 430 F.3d 640 (2d Cir. 2005) (flight to avoid arrest questioned as obstruction; outcome criticized here)
- United States v. Porter, 145 F.3d 897 (7th Cir. 1998) (guideline language on obstruction and attempt)
- United States v. Schwanke, 694 F.3d 894 (7th Cir. 2012) (continued application of obstruction principles)
- United States v. King, 506 F.3d 532 (7th Cir. 2007) (flight considerations in obstruction context)