United States v. Moses Coppin, 569 F. App'x 326

Coppin and Bennett were charged in a second, joint indictment with conspiracy to obstruct justice and aiding and abetting obstruction of justice, plus counts for felon in possession of a firearm; Coppin’s felon-in-possession conviction remained in dispute, Bennett’s did not.
Burglary and theft occurred in Dallas on Oct. 29, 2010, involving a stolen jewelry stash, a firearm, a memory card, and a SIM card; Bennett and Coppin were linked to the crime via a vehicle rental and subsequent recovered evidence.
Bennett and Coppin engaged in post‑arrest conduct to conceal evidence, including Bennett removing a SIM card, Bennett recovering Coppin’s phone, and efforts to have others claim ownership of the gun.
Bennett and Coppin allegedly sought to influence third parties (e.g., Collins) to claim ownership of the gun and to suppress evidence to impede upcoming federal proceedings.
The district court sentenced Coppin to 360 months total and Bennett to 180 months; on appeal, the court vacated Count One (conspiracy) but affirmed other counts and remanded for resentencing.
The court held the Count One conspiracy charge defective for missing elements, but Count Two (aiding and abetting concealment) and Counts Three and Five had sufficient evidence and proper instructions, with an evidentiary basis for leadership enhancement later challenged.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was Count One’s conspiracy defect harmless or reversible?	Coppin/Bennett: missing 'corruptly' and 'another person' elements.	Government: omissions were harmless due to jury instructions.	Count One reversed; not harmless error.
Did Count Two and its omissions render the conviction unsustainable?	Coppin/Bennett: lack of 'corruptly' in indictment.	Indictment plus instructions cured error.	Count Two sustained; harmless error established by instructions.
Was there sufficient evidence to convict on Counts Two, Three, and Five?	Evidence failed for intent/obstruction.	Evidence showed conspiracy, obstruction, and felon possession.	Counts Two, Three, and Five upheld.
Was the district court wrong to enhance Coppin’s sentence for leadership?	Coppin: no organizer/leader determination.	Evidence showed Coppin directed Bennett.	No clear error; enhancement affirmed.
Does remand for revised sentencing require new sentencing hearing?	Jury verdicts affected—Count One vacated.	No new hearing needed if concurrent counts; vacatur dictates remand for revised sentences.	Remand for entry of revised sentences; no new hearing required unless ordered.

Arthur Andersen LLP v. United States, 544 U.S. 696 (Supreme Court 2005) (requirement of intent to subvert justice; harmless error analysis)
United States v. Dentler, 492 F.3d 306 (5th Cir. 2007) (harmless error when indictment omits element if jury instructions cure)
United States v. Thompson, 647 F.3d 180 (5th Cir. 2011) ( Fifth Amendment right to indictment; harmless error analysis)
United States v. Porter, 542 F.3d 1088 (5th Cir. 2008) (conspiracy elements; multiple actors in conspiracy)
United States v. Ramos, 537 F.3d 439 (5th Cir. 2008) (nexus/intent requirements for obstruction cases)
United States v. Shively, 927 F.2d 804 (5th Cir. 1991) (timing of obstructive acts relative to proceedings)
United States v. Neal, 951 F.2d 630 (5th Cir. 1992) (elements of obstructing the due administration of justice)
United States v. Metcalf, 435 F.2d 754 (9th Cir. 1970) (when proceeding begins for purposes of obstructing justice)
United States v. Aguilar, 515 U.S. 593 (Supreme Court 1995) (natural and probable effect standard for obstruction)
United States v. Gonzalez, (example placeholder) ((cir.)) ((placeholder))
United States v. Desposito, 704 F.3d 221 (2d Cir. 2013) (nexus requirement for evidence concealment prosecutions)