01-3425 U.S. v. Tankersley

Listen to this article

“Tankersley failed to comply with the district court’s preliminary injunction, and as a result of that failure, the government and the receiver expended substantial resources investigating Tankersley and securing his assets. For example, the government explained at Tankersley’s sentencing hearing that many weeks of work went into tracking down and determining what happened to Tankersley’s yacht. Thus, the district court properly applied this enhancement.

“At sentencing, the district court enhanced Tankersley’s sentence because it found that he continued to violate the injunction by concealing assets in storage units and failing to provide certain information to the receiver. However, U.S.S.G. 3C1.1 does not apply ‘unless the defendant obstructed the investigation or trial of the obstruction count.’ U.S.S.G. 2J1.2, cmt. n.2. The conduct upon which the district court enhanced Tankersley’s sentence did not obstruct the investigation or prosecution of the instant offense, rather it obstructed the administration of justice with respect to the FTC civil proceedings. Therefore, as the government conceded at oral argument, the district court’s basis for enhancing Tankersley’s sentence was erroneous.”

Affirmed in part, and vacated and remanded in part.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, Lozano, J., Kanne, J.