Sentencing — obstruction of justice — enhancement

Listen to this article

United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit

Criminal

Sentencing — obstruction of justice enhancement

A defendant’s sentence was properly enhanced for obstruction of justice, even if he fled because of death threats from a co-conspirator.

“Schwanke analogizes his case to United States v. Hanhardt, in which we concluded that a defendant lacked the specific intent required for the § 3C1.1 adjustment because he missed a scheduled hearing as a result of attempted suicide, 361 F.3d 382, 388-89 (7th Cir. 2004), vacated on other grounds, Altobello v. United States, 543 U.S. 1097 (2005). Schwanke urges that he stayed abroad out of a specific intent to preserve rather than end his life. But we explicitly limited Hanhardt to its facts, explaining that ‘[t]he nature of suicide does not lend itself to a clear understanding of an individual’s motivation other than the obvious intent to end his life.’ Hanhardt, 361 F.3d at 389; see also United States v. Curb, 626 F.3d 921, 929 (7th Cir. 2010) (explaining that a ‘disturbed mental state’ like that in Hanhardt may be considered for § 3C1.1 purposes ‘in very limited cases’). And although Schwanke attributes his lengthy stay abroad to sustained panic out of a belief that police shared confidential information with Michener, he points to nothing in the record to support the reasonableness of such a belief, which the district court was entitled to discredit. See generally Arceo, 535 F.3d at 687 (explaining that defendant must support belief with record evidence).”

Affirmed.

12-1149 U.S. v. Schwanke

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, Crabb, J., Per Curiam.