United States v. Markle
2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 25423
| 2d Cir. | 2010Background
- In 1998, Markle, Local 91, attacked Bricklayers Union members over exclusive work rights at a Niagara Falls site.
- Several Bricklayers victims were treated for injuries after the assault, including elbow, rib, and other injuries requiring medical attention.
- In 2003, Markle and others were indicted for two counts of attempted Hobbs Act extortion under 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a).
- Before trial, Markle sought Enmons defense; the district court ruled Enmons inapplicable and precluded the defense and jury instruction.
- Markle was convicted, and the district court sentenced him to 57 months’ imprisonment on each count, concurrent with two years of supervised release, plus $20,000 restitution; enhanced for bodily injury and monetary loss.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Enmons defense applies to inter-union violence | Markle: Enmons defense available; district court erred | Markle: Enmons defense not limited to labor disputes | Enmons defense limited to labor-management disputes; inter-union violence not exempt |
| Whether the Enmons defense was properly precluded | Markle: trial fairness violated by preclusion | Markle: defense not legally viable here | District court correctly precluded the Enmons defense |
| Whether two-level bodily-injury enhancement was proper | Markle: injuries not significant; enhancement improper | Prosecution: injuries were significant and justified enhancement | Two-level bodily-injury enhancement upheld |
| Whether the $20,000 loss enhancement was proper | Markle: loss estimate insufficient for enhancement | Loss reasonably estimated from evidence; enhancement justified | One-level loss enhancement upheld |
| Whether the conviction and sentence should be affirmed | Markle seeks reversal/remand for new trial | District court properly instructed and sentenced | judgments affirmed in full |
Key Cases Cited
- Enmons, 410 U.S. 396 (Supreme Court, 1973) (limits Hobbs Act to labor-management disputes)
- Kopp, 562 F.3d 141 (2d Cir. 2009) (de novo review of Enmons-related decisions)
- Zappola, 677 F.2d 264 (2d Cir. 1982) (Enmons-like defense not recognized for non-labor disputes)
- Mulder, 273 F.3d 91 (2d Cir. 2001) (limits Enmons to legitimate labor objectives)
- Taylor, 92 F.3d 1313 (2d Cir. 1996) (enforces labor-context limitation of Enmons defense)
- Robbins v. Wilkie, 433 F.3d 755 (10th Cir. 2006) (claims of right defense limited to Enmons facts)
- Debs, 949 F.2d 199 (6th Cir. 1991) (labor-context limitation of Enmons scope)
- Castor, 937 F.2d 293 (7th Cir. 1991) (scope of Enmons confined to labor context)
- Porcaro, 648 F.2d 753 (1st Cir. 1981) (restricts Enmons to labor context)
- Guang, 511 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2007) (reasonableness standard for loss calculations)
- Lancaster, 6 F.3d 208 (4th Cir. 1993) (distinguishes significant vs. minor injuries for enhancement)