United States v. John Gray, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 18528

Gray used a sleeper hold on Benton while Benton was restrained, causing loss of consciousness.
Gray did not inform medical staff; he later admitted Benton should have been reported as choking.
Gray wrote false reports (CIR and SCFSR) about the incident and lied during an internal affairs interview.
Autopsy originally attributed Benton’s death to natural causes; later the coroner changed the verdict to homicide after new information emerged.
Gray and Schmeltz were charged in 2009 with multiple federal counts; Gray was convicted on Counts 2, 4, and 5 after trial with Schmeltz.
At sentencing, the district court imposed enhancements under § 3A1.3, § 2J1.2(b)(2), and § 2J1.2(b)(3)(B), producing a combined offense level and a below-guidelines sentence of 36 months.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Nexus requirement for § 1519	Gray argues for a nexus requirement for § 1519.	Gray asserts need for nexus between conduct and federal investigation.	No nexus requirement; § 1519 does not require it.
Unanimity for Counts 4 and 5	Unanimity needed on the method of § 1519 violations.	No unanimity required on the particular means; falsification is the element.	No specific unanimity instruction required; the falsification element suffices.
Acquitted conduct in sentencing	Challenge to use of acquitted facts for enhancements.	Acquitted conduct can be considered for enhancements under controlling precedent.	Enhancements based on acquitted conduct upheld under controlling Sixth Circuit law.
§ 3A1.3 enhancement	Challenge to applying 2-level increase for restrained victim.	Enhancement properly applies given restraint and medical neglect.	Affirmed § 3A1.3 enhancement; district court acted within discretion.
§ 2J1.2(b)(2) and related enhancements	Arguments that § 2J1.2(b)(2) and related enhancements do not apply.	Enhancements supported by substantial interference and record manipulation.	§ 2J1.2(b)(2) upheld; § 2J1.2(b)(3)(B) and related enhancements deemed harmless error in light of § 2J1.2(b)(2).

United States v. Kernell, 667 F.3d 746 (6th Cir. 2012) (rejects nexus requirement for § 1519)
United States v. White, 551 F.3d 381 (6th Cir. 2008) (acquitted conduct enhancements constitutional if not exceeding max)
Tackett, 193 F.3d 880 (6th Cir. 1999) (defining substantial interference with justice for § 2J1.2(b)(2))
Richardson v. United States, 526 U.S. 813 (1999) (unanimity analysis for continuing offenses; caution on series of violations)
United States v. Schmeltz, 667 F.3d 685 (6th Cir. 2011) (upheld jury instruction on § 1519 unanimity (falsification element))
Carson, 560 F.3d 566 (6th Cir. 2009) (arrest lawfulness does not preclude § 3A1.3)
United States v. Lanham, 617 F.3d 873 (6th Cir. 2010) (sufficiency of evidence for § 242 deliberate indifference standard)