10-3028 U.S. v. Martinez

Listen to this article

Sentencing
Obstruction of justice amendment

Where the defendant spent several years on the lam after initially cooperating with authorities, his sentence was properly enhanced for obstruction of justice.

“Martinez seizes on these requirements, arguing that his failure to appear was neither intentional nor voluntary. He first claims that—because he based his decision to abscond on fear—he could not have behaved intentionally and the adjustment could not be applied. This argument misapprehends the intent necessary to trigger the adjustment and flies in the face of our controlling precedent. As we held in Curb, a defendant’s personal motivations for not showing up for sentencing are generally irrelevant to the intent question; rather, it is enough for intent’s sake that the defendant made a conscious decision—regardless of the reason—not to appear, thereby deterring the administration of justice. See Curb, 626 F.3d at 929 (defendant’s decision not to appear was intentional conduct deserving of the adjustment even if motivated by ‘fear’ or ‘any other emotion’). Martinez neither disputes Curb’s reasoning nor draws a meaningful distinction between the facts here and the facts in Curb. As such, because Martinez was aware of his sentencing and deliberately decided not to attend, Curb dictates our holding that he possessed the intent necessary to apply the adjustment.”

Affirmed.

10-3028 U.S. v. Martinez

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, St. Eve, J., Kanne, J.

Full Text