United States v. Peter Hendrickson, 460 F. App'x 516

Hendrickson was found guilty by a jury on ten counts of filing a false document under 26 U.S.C. § 7206(1) for tax documents claiming no wages.
District court calculated base offense level 16, added two levels for obstruction of justice, totaling 18, with a guideline range of 27–33 months per count and concurrent sentences of 33 months.
Hendrickson’s counsel challenged the convictions and sentence; a supposed ‘next friend’ sought intervention which was not ruled on.
The appellate court reviews Confrontation Clause challenges de novo and assesses other issues for plain error or de novo review as appropriate.
The court affirmes convictions, vacates sentences, and remands for resentencing consistent with its rulings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admission of documents under Confrontation Clause	Hendrickson contends documents and related statements were hearsay and testimonial evidence.	The district court's use of the documents was permissible to show notice of rejected interpretation, not to prove wages.	No plain error; admission was admissible for notice purposes.
Willfulness, wages and employee definitions	Disputed interpretation of 'wages' and 'employee'; trial jury instructions misstate willfulness.	Court properly defined terms and allowed focus on Hendrickson’s state of mind.	Instructions were proper; definitions and willfulness charge upheld.
Plain error in jury's request to view statutes	Jury should have been provided text of §§ 3121, 3401.	No trial objection; limits on relief under plain-error review.	No plain error; district court did not deny access to materials.
Sufficiency of evidence	Evidence did not prove wages were taxable or misstatements material.	Evidence showed remuneration as wages and past reporting as taxable; misstatements deemed material.	Sufficient evidence to sustain conviction; materiality of misstatements established.
Obstruction of justice enhancement	Hendrickson’s testimony about a void civil judgment warranted enhancement.	Statement was speculative and not the type of false testimony warranting enhancement.	Two-level enhancement for obstruction of justice reversed for this issue.

United States v. Boyd, 640 F.3d 657 (6th Cir. 2011) (Confrontation Clause de novo review)
United States v. Henderson, 626 F.3d 326 (6th Cir. 2010) (Explanations of admissibility of documentary evidence)
United States v. Zidell, 323 F.3d 412 (6th Cir. 2003) (Plain-error standard for evidentiary questions)
United States v. Ham, 628 F.3d 801 (6th Cir. 2011) (Plain-error review for jury access to statutes)
United States v. Middleton, 246 F.3d 825 (6th Cir. 2001) (Jury access and reading of statutes limitations)
United States v. Gunter, 551 F.3d 472 (6th Cir. 2009) (Jury instructions and willfulness standard)