United States v. Michael Iverson
874 F.3d 855
5th Cir.2017Background
- Iverson, previously convicted in New York of rape and kidnapping and required to register as a sex offender, moved to Texas in 2013 and failed to register every 90 days as required.
- Arrest on a parole-violation warrant revealed the failure-to-register offense; Iverson pleaded guilty to failing to register under SORNA.
- The PSR recommended a two-level Sentencing Guidelines enhancement for obstruction of justice based on Iverson’s allegedly false financial affidavit to U.S. Pretrial Services used to obtain appointed counsel (undervaluing three vehicles).
- The district court adopted the obstruction enhancement and sentenced Iverson to 37 months (bottom of Guidelines range) and imposed five years’ supervised release with several sex-offender-related special conditions.
- Iverson challenged (1) whether the obstruction enhancement covers lies to obtain appointed counsel and (2) the factual finding that he intentionally lied; he also challenged special supervised-release conditions.
Issues
| Issue | Iverson's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §3C1.1 obstruction enhancement applies to false statements on a pretrial financial affidavit to obtain appointed counsel | A lie to obtain a free lawyer does not interfere with investigation/prosecution and thus falls outside the enhancement | Procuring court resources under false pretenses interferes with administration of justice; commentary and examples cover lying to judges/magistrates | Court held enhancement applies: lying to a judicial officer to obtain counsel qualifies as obstruction under the Guidelines |
| Whether district court clearly erred in finding Iverson intentionally lied about asset values | Discrepancy due to confusion about asset condition or title; not intentional | PSR reflects Iverson admitted to intentionally lying; district court implicitly credited that admission | Court found no clear error: confession and district-court factfinding affirmed |
| Whether special condition delegating restrictions to therapist (condition 2) was valid | Such delegation is permissible | It unlawfully delegates sentencing authority to a private therapist | Court vacated condition 2 for unlawful delegation |
| Whether remaining special conditions (treatment, residence approval, no victim contact, searches) were reasonably related to sentencing factors | Conditions not rationally related because underlying offense was failure-to-register, not a sex offense | Defendant’s violent sexual history and conduct justify sex-offender conditions to protect public | Court affirmed remaining conditions; connection to record (past rape/kidnapping, sexual exposure, treatment history) sufficed |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Ruff, 79 F.3d 123 (11th Cir. 1996) (false statements to a judge can trigger obstruction adjustment)
- United States v. Hernandez-Ramirez, 254 F.3d 841 (9th Cir. 2001) (applying obstruction enhancement to false statements in obtaining appointed counsel)
- United States v. Khimchiachvili, 372 F.3d 75 (2d Cir. 2004) (holding enhancement does not cover lies solely to obtain free counsel absent intent to affect prosecution)
- United States v. Greig, 717 F.3d 212 (1st Cir. 2013) (applying enhancement to false statements related to pretrial judicial matters such as bail)
- United States v. Reeves, 752 F.2d 995 (5th Cir. 1985) (distinguishing obstruction in judicial proceedings from nonjudicial contexts)
- United States v. Morin, 832 F.3d 513 (5th Cir. 2016) (invalidating delegation of sentencing conditions to private therapists)
- United States v. Miller, 665 F.3d 114 (5th Cir. 2011) (upholding broad sex-offender special conditions on supervised release)