By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//November 16, 2010//
Sentencing
Obstruction of justice enhancement
Where the defendant failed to appear for sentencing, an obstruction of justice enhancement was properly applied.
“[W]e agree with the district court that Curb is misapplying this court’s ruling in United States v. Draves to his own situation. In Draves, we held that it was not error to deny the obstruction of justice enhancement as applied to a defendant’s ‘panicked, instinctive flight’ from the immediate scene of his arrest. United States v. Draves, 103 F.3d 1328, 1337 (7th Cir. 1997). But Curb’s situation is not a case of ‘panicked, instinctive flight,’ as was found in Draves. In that case, the defendant had been handcuffed and placed in the back seat of the officer’s car while officers attended to a co-defendant. In a panicked state, the defendant fled the car and was caught by arresting officers minutes later. This court found that the defendant’s action in that case was not a ‘calculated evasion’ and therefore not a proper basis for an obstruction of justice enhancement. In this case, Curb was not engaging in an instinctive flight a few moments after being placed under police custody; he was well aware of the sentencing hearing. He knew that he had pleaded guilty to a serious crime and was facing a rather sizeable prison sentence. His behavior can only be described as a ‘calculated evasion of the criminal justice system.'”
Affirmed.
09-2510 U.S. v. Curb
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Der-Yeghiayan, J., Bauer, J.