United States v. Mollner
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 9048
| 10th Cir. | 2011Background
- Mollner pled guilty to armed bank robbery under 18 U.S.C. § 2113.
- Before sentencing, the district court granted the government's motion to compel Mollner to testify at his co-defendant Wakefield's trial and granted him immunity.
- Mollner refused to testify.
- At sentencing, the district court increased Mollner's offense level by two levels for obstruction of justice under § 3C1.1 due to his refusal to testify.
- The district court sentenced Mollner to 100 months' imprisonment.
- Mollner appeals, challenging the obstruction-of-justice enhancement and its scope after Amendment 581 to § 3C1.1.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 3C1.1 obstruction enhancement applies to obstructive conduct in a closely related case. | Mollner argues obstruction applies only to his own offense. | Mollner contends Bernaugh controls; Amendment 581 narrows scope. | Affirmed; obstruction enhancement applies. |
| Effect of Amendment 581 on Bernaugh and the scope of 'instant offense'. | Government relies on Amendment 581 to broaden scope to closely related cases. | Mollner argues Amendment 581 narrows Bernaugh, restricting to the instant offense. | Amendment 581 clarifies that obstruction may relate to a closely related case; Bernaugh remains good law. |
| Whether the commentary to § 3C1.1 should be given controlling weight to extend to co-defendant obstructions. | Government relies on commentary as authoritative interpretation. | Mollner challenges the weight of the commentary. | Commentary given controlling weight under Stinson; interpretation aligns with Amendment 581. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Bernaugh, 969 F.2d 858 (10th Cir. 1992) (obstruction enhancement in closely related case)
- Stinson v. United States, 508 U.S. 36 (U.S. 1993) (guidelines commentary carries deference)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (U.S. 2007) (reasonableness review of sentences)
- United States v. Savoca, 596 F.3d 154 (2d Cir. 2010) (perjury in co-defendant's trial supports obstruction enhancement)
- United States v. Killingsworth, 413 F.3d 760 (8th Cir. 2005) (perjury in closely related case can trigger enhancement)
- United States v. Jones, 308 F.3d 425 (4th Cir. 2002) (amendment broadens obstruction scope to closely related cases)
- United States v. Verdin, 243 F.3d 1174 (9th Cir. 2001) (amendment clarifications on 'instant offense')
- United States v. Messino, 382 F.3d 704 (7th Cir. 2004) (co-defendant trial obstruction can trigger enhancement)