United States v. Jeanette Grigsby
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 18280
| 7th Cir. | 2012Background
- Grigsby, a Bank One teller, helped orchestrate two staged bank robberies, yielding about $514,000 total.
- She was indicted on two counts of entering a federally insured bank to commit a felony; she pled guilty to the first count and stipulated to the second, which the government moved to dismiss.
- At sentencing, the district court applied a two-level obstruction of justice enhancement (§ 3C1.1) and a three-level supervisor/manager enhancement (§ 3B1.1(b)) based on her alleged lies and leadership in the scheme.
- Grigsby gave a sworn plea statement minimizing her role; the government relied on coconspirator testimony and plea agreements to support the enhancements.
- The guideline range became 46–57 months, and the court sentenced Grigsby to 57 months, the top of the range.
- Grigsby appealed, challenging both enhancements, as well as procedural and substantive reasonableness under § 3553(a).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Obstruction enhancement applicability | Grigsby argues the government waived the issue and that statements were not material. | Grigsby contends the district court erred in applying the obstruction enhancement. | Enhancement affirmed; statements were material and deliberate perjury in the plea colloquy. |
| Supervisory-role enhancement | Grigsby contends she did not hold a supervisor/leader role. | District court crediting coconspirators’ accounts shows Grigsby supervised/organized the scheme. | Enhancement affirmed; district court did not plainly err in crediting witnesses and applying § 3B1.1(b). |
| 3553(a) procedural compliance | District court failed to meaningfully consider her history and characteristics. | Court adequately considered § 3553(a) factors without a line-by-line checklist. | Procedural compliance satisfied; meaningful consideration found given the case’s circumstances. |
| 3553(a) disparity consideration | Court treated Grigsby more harshly than coconspirators without justification. | Disparities among codefendants are not prohibited; reasons exist for different treatment. | No unwarranted disparity; differences justified by Grigsby’s perjury and supervisory role. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Dunnigan, 507 U.S. 87 (Supreme Court 1993) (perjury and obstruction standard for § 3C1.1)
- United States v. Anderson, 580 F.3d 639 (7th Cir. 2009) (materiality and scope of obstruction enhancement)
- United States v. White, 240 F.3d 656 (7th Cir. 2001) (need not delineate each false statement for perjury finding)
- United States v. DeLeon, 603 F.3d 397 (7th Cir. 2010) (materiality in plea-colloquy statements)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (Supreme Court 2007) (reasonableness review of within-guidelines sentences)