01-2415 U.S. v. Mayberry

Listen to this article

“Mayberry next argues that even if he did attack Coleman, he did not obstruct justice because the attack occurred after he had admitted his involvement in the conspiracy. Thus, he contends, he could not have interfered with ‘the investigation, prosecution, or sentencing.’ See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual sec. 3C1.1. This argument, however, is unavailing because Mayberry attacked Coleman before pleading guilty. All that is required for obstruction of justice is that the act ‘could affect, to some reasonable probability, the outcome of the judicial process; the [act] does not have to succeed in affecting the outcome.’ United States v. Duncan, 230 F.3d 980, 988 (7th Cir. 2000). It is possible that the attack on Coleman could have influenced Coleman to retract his statement, and perhaps embolden Mayberry to go to trial or to dispute relevant conduct. Therefore, the district court did not clearly err by concluding that Mayberry had obstructed justice.”

“Mayberry is not entitled to a reduction for acceptance of responsibility because his attack on Coleman ‘belied any sense of remorse that should be attendant to an acceptance of responsibility.'”

Affirmed.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, Herndon, J., Flaum, J.