UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. GARY ANDREW HASSLER, Defendant – Appellant.
No. 19-4824
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
March 25, 2021
PUBLISHED. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Lynchburg. Norman K. Moon, Senior District Judge. (6:18-cr-00010-NKM-2). Submitted: January 29, 2021. Before MOTZ, AGEE and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by published opinion. Judge Agee wrote the opinion, in which Judge Motz and Judge Keenan joined.
Juval O. Scott, Federal Public Defender, Randy V. Cargill, Assistant Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellant. Daniel P. Bubar, Acting United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, Jennifer R. Bockhorst, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Abingdon, Virginia, for Appellee.
Gary Andrew Hassler appeals his conviction for obstruction of justice, in violation of
I.
After a grand jury indicted Hassler, the head nurse at the Rockbridge County, Virginia Regional Jail Authority (“Rockbridge“), for obstruction of justice in violation of
Kessinger was taken to the hospital, but Clark was not. Clark asked to go to the hospital, but the Rockbridge Superintendent
A nurse did not examine Clark until March 3, at which time she suspected that Clark‘s injuries had become infected, so Clark was transported to the hospital emergency room. That same day, Virginia State Police dispatched several special agents to Rockbridge to investigate the assaults at the request of the Sheriff‘s Office.
On March 6, Derek Almarode, a member of the Rockbridge staff, read an “incident report” that Hassler had created on March 5, in which Hassler claimed to have observed Clark‘s injuries on March 1, but documented that Clark had refused medical treatment at that time. However, Almarode and an investigator with the Virginia State Police, who was also a sworn member of the FBI‘s violent crime unit, noticed several inconsistencies in Hassler‘s incident report.
A Virginia State Police investigator and an FBI agent subsequently interviewed Hassler. They confronted him about the incident report‘s inconsistencies, and Hassler admitted that “[he] wrote this report to cover [his] butt” because Clark‘s injuries should have been reported, but they had not been. J.A. 247–48. However, Hassler denied knowing that there was an investigation because he was not working on March 3, when Virginia State Police officers arrived at Rockbridge, although he was aware that Kessinger had been taken to the Sheriff‘s Office to assist in the investigation.
Hassler was subsequently indicted for falsifying the incident report and thereby violating
For you to find the defendant guilty of this crime, you must be convinced that the government has proved each of the following beyond a reasonable doubt:
First: That the defendant knowingly falsified a document or record; Second: That the defendant acted with the intent to impede or obstruct an investigation in relation to, or in contemplation of, a matter; and
Third: That the matter was within the jurisdiction of Federal Bureau of Investigation [sic], which is an agency of the Executive Branch of the United States Government.
There is no requirement that the matter or investigation have been pending or imminent at the time of the obstruction, but only that the acts were taken in relation to or in contemplation of any such matter or investigation.
In order to meet its burden, the government does not have to prove that the defendant specifically knew that the matter or investigation was within the jurisdiction of a department or agency of the United States. In other words, you need not find that the defendant knew he was obstructing or impeding a matter that was federal in nature.
Finally, an act is done “knowingly” if the defendant is aware of the act and does not act through ignorance, mistake, or accident. You may consider evidence of the defendant‘s words, acts, or omissions, along with all the other evidence, in deciding whether the defendant acted knowingly.
J.A. 34–35.
Hassler objected to this instruction, arguing that, under Rehaif v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2191 (2019), he could not be convicted unless,
The crime of falsifying a document a document [sic] with the intent to impede, obstruct, and influence the investigation of a matter within the jurisdiction of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, an agency of the United States, as charged in Counts 5 and 6 of the Indictment, has three essential elements:
One: That the Federal Bureau of Investigation was engaged in an investigation of a matter within its jurisdiction; Two: That Gary Hassler knowingly falsified a document; and
Three: That Mr. Hassler did so with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence the investigation or proper administration of a matter by any department or agency of the United States.
J.A. 43.
The district court used the Government‘s proposed jury instruction regarding the elements of
II.
On appeal, Hassler raises two arguments. First, he argues that the district court erred by instructing the jury that the Government was not required to prove that he intended to impede an investigation that he knew or contemplated would become a federal investigation. Second, he contests the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction. We address these arguments in tandem because Hassler‘s sufficiency argument is tied to his jury instruction claim and fails unless he prevails on that issue.
“We review a district court‘s decision to give a particular jury instruction for abuse of discretion, and review whether a jury instruction incorrectly stated the law de novo.” United States v. Miltier, 882 F.3d 81, 89 (4th Cir. 2018) (internal citations omitted). “In reviewing the adequacy of jury instructions, we determine whether the instructions construed as a whole, and in light of the whole record, adequately informed the jury of the controlling legal principles without misleading or confusing the jury to the prejudice of the objecting party.” United States v. Kivanc, 714 F.3d 782, 794 (4th Cir. 2013) (internal quotation marks omitted). “Even if a jury was erroneously instructed, however, we will not set aside a resulting verdict unless the erroneous instruction seriously prejudiced the challenging party‘s case.” Miltier, 882 F.3d at 89 (internal quotation marks omitted).
To obtain a conviction under
(1) the defendant made a false entry in a record, document, or tangible object; (2) the defendant did so knowingly; and (3) the defendant intended to impede, obstruct, or influence the investigation or proper administration of [a matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States].
United States v. Powell, 680 F.3d 350, 356 (4th Cir. 2012), superseded by regulation on other grounds as stated in United States v. Carbajal, 717 F. App‘x 234, 240 (4th Cir. 2018) (unpublished); see
[i]t is well settled that mens rea requirements typically do not extend to the jurisdictional elements of a crime—that the existence of the fact that confers federal jurisdiction need not be one in the mind of the actor at the time he perpetrates the act made criminal by the federal statute.
United States v. Cooper, 482 F.3d 658, 664 (4th Cir. 2007) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Every circuit to address the issue presented in this appeal has concluded that knowledge of a federal investigation under
III.
For the reasons set forth above, the judgment of the district court is affirmed. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this Court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED.