F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
PUBLISH
APR 25 2005
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
TENTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. No. 04-2046
CARLA LYN CLIFTON,
Defendant-Appellant.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
(D.C. No. 03-CR-1101)
Laura Fashing, Assistant United States Attorney (David C. Iglesias, United States
Attorney, with her on the brief), Albuquerque, New Mexico, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Hope Eckert, Attorney at Law, LLC (John D. Cline, Freedman Boyd Daniels Hollander
Goldberg & Cline P.A., with her on the brief), Albuquerque, New Mexico, for Defendant-
Appellant.
Before EBEL, BALDOCK, and HARTZ, Circuit Judges.
BALDOCK, Circuit Judge.
A jury convicted Defendant Carla Lyn Clifton on three counts of knowingly
making false declarations before a Federal grand jury in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1623(a).
The district court sentenced her to forty-one months imprisonment. Defendant appeals
her conviction and sentence. She argues the district court (1) improperly instructed the
jury on reasonable doubt, (2) improperly allowed the Government to introduce
inadmissible evidence under the guise of impeachment, and (3) imposed an incorrect and
unconstitutional sentence under the United States Sentencing Guidelines (“Guidelines”).1
We have jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1291, affirm in part, and remand for re-sentencing.
I.
The historical facts in this case arise out of the Drug Enforcement
Administration’s (DEA) investigation into a cocaine distribution ring in Albuquerque,
New Mexico. The story, as portrayed in the light most favorable to the jury verdict,
begins when the DEA seized 1.4 kilograms of crack cocaine from the home of Robert
Beal. DEA agents thereafter learned an individual named “Jamie” with the cellular
telephone number 450-5251 (the “5251-cell phone”) supplied Beal with cocaine. The
agents discovered that Defendant subscribed to the 5251-cell phone.
DEA agents Marcus West and David Tyree arrived unannounced at Defendant’s
home on January 27, 2003. Defendant’s father, Douglas Clifton, answered the door and
explained his daughter lived there with him, but she was not presently home. The agents
1
The Supreme Court decided Blakely v. Washington, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004) and
United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005) during the pendency of Defendant’s
appeal. We must apply the holdings in Blakely and Booker to all cases in which a
defendant properly raised an issue under either case. Booker, 125 S. Ct. at 769.
Defendant properly raised her Sixth Amendment issues in a supplemental brief. Compare
United States v. Lindsey, 389 F.3d 1334, 1335 n.1 (10th Cir. 2004).
2
asked Mr. Clifton if he knew anything about a “Jamie Mendoza” or the 5251-cell phone.
Mr. Clifton responded that his daughter may have obtained a cellular telephone for
Mendoza because she had obtained cellular telephones for other individuals who, like
Mendoza, had credit problems. The agents concluded their interview with Mr. Clifton
and waited outside for Defendant to return home.
Defendant arrived at the house approximately an hour later. The agents
approached Defendant, identified themselves, and asked her about Mendoza and the
5251-cell phone. Defendant told the agents she obtained the 5251-cell phone for
Mendoza because he had credit problems. The agents thereafter agreed, upon
Defendant’s request, to finish the interview at a nearby gas station. At the gas station,
Defendant reiterated she obtained the 5251-cell phone for Mendoza because of his credit
problems. Defendant also informed the agents she cancelled the 5251-cell phone in
October 2002 after Mendonza told her it had been stolen.
Defendant called Agent West the next morning. Defendant told the agent she
wanted to “take back” everything she said during their interview the previous day.
Defendant explained that she exclusively used the 5251-cell phone, Mendoza had never
used it, and she had never said anything to the contrary. A grand jury subsequently
subpoenaed Defendant. She appeared before the grand jury in February 2003 and
testified, among other things, that (1) nobody except herself had used the 5251-cell
phone, and (2) she had never told the agents anything to the contrary. Defendant’s
3
testimony caused the DEA’s investigation to “hit a brick wall” and prevented the grand
jury from indicting Mendoza.
The Government suspected Defendant of perjury. The Government provided
Defendant an opportunity to re-testify before the grand jury and, if necessary, recant her
previous testimony. Defendant appeared voluntarily before the grand jury in May 2003,
but did not recant her previous testimony. Instead, Defendant testified that “[i]n regards
to [the 5251-cell phone], I had purchased that phone for myself. I have never given it to
anybody to use. I have never knowingly let anybody use it.”
Defendant’s perjury indictment followed. The case proceeded to trial and a jury
convicted Defendant on all three counts charged. With respect to the first count, the jury
found Defendant falsely declared before the grand jury that “nobody” except herself had
used the 5251-cell phone. With respect to the second count, the jury found Defendant
falsely declared before the grand jury that she did not tell the DEA agents she had
obtained a cellular telephone for Mendoza. With respect to the third count, the jury found
Defendant falsely declared before the grand jury that she obtained the 5251-cell phone for
herself and never knowingly let anyone use the telephone.
II.
The grand jury functions as a barrier to reckless and unfounded charges the
Executive Branch might otherwise bring against an individual. United States v. Cotton,
535 U.S. 625, 634 (2002). The “historic office” can only provide such a shield to
4
arbitrary and oppressive executive action when the grand jury acts pursuant to the truthful
testimony of witnesses compelled to provide it information. United States v. Mandujano,
425 U.S. 564, 571, 576 (1976). Congress, recognizing the importance of a citizen’s
testimony before the grand jury, enacted § 1623 to facilitate perjury prosecutions and
thereby enhance the reliability of testimony before Federal grand juries. Dunn v. United
States, 442 U.S. 100, 107 (1979); see also Mandujano, 425 U.S. at 576 n.3.
The statute prohibits any person from knowingly making false material
declarations under oath before a grand jury. See 18 U.S.C. § 1623(a). The Government
must prove the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt under § 1623: (1) the
defendant made a declaration under oath before a grand jury; (2) such declaration was
false; (3) the defendant knew the declaration was false; and (4) the false declaration was
material to the grand jury’s inquiry. See Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461, 465
(1997); United States v. Durham, 139 F.3d 1325, 1331 (10th Cir. 1998). With this
backdrop, we turn to Defendant’s specific claims of error.
A.
To begin, Defendant argues the district court improperly instructed the jury on
reasonable doubt. We review the sufficiency of a reasonable doubt instruction de novo.
Tillman v. Cook, 215 F.3d 1116, 1123 (10th Cir. 2000). The Due Process Clause
prohibits the criminal conviction of any person except upon proof of guilt beyond a
reasonable doubt. Sullivan v. Louisiana, 508 U.S. 275, 278 (1993). The reasonable
5
doubt standard operates to give “concrete substance” to the presumption of innocence.
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 315 (1979). The district court, as a result, must
instruct the jury on the subject. Id. at 320 n.14. The Due Process Clause does not,
however, “require that any particular form of words be used in advising the jury of the
government’s burden of proof.” Victor v. Nebraska, 511 U.S. 1, 5 (1994). A district
court instead “retain[s] considerable latitude in instructing juries on reasonable doubt[,]”
United States v. Conway, 73 F.3d 975, 980 (10th Cir. 1995), and fulfills its constitutional
duty if the charge as a whole correctly conveys the concept of reasonable doubt. Victor,
511 U.S. at 5.
In this case, the district court’s instructions correctly conveyed the concept of
reasonable doubt to the jury. The district court instructed the jury:
The Superseding Indictment or formal charge against the defendant
is not evidence of guilt. Indeed, the defendant is presumed by the law to be
innocent. The law does not require a defendant to prove his innocence or
produce any evidence at all. The government has the burden of proving the
defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and if it fails to do so, you
must acquit the defendant.
While the government’s burden of proof is a strict or heavy burden,
it is not necessary that the defendant’s guilt be proved beyond all possible
doubt. It is only required that the government’s proof exclude any
“reasonable doubt” concerning defendant’s guilt.
A “reasonable doubt” is a doubt based upon reason and common
sense after careful and impartial consideration of all the evidence in a case.
Defendant objected to the omission of the following sentence from the end of the
instruction: “Proof beyond a reasonable doubt, therefore, is proof of such a convincing
character that you would be willing to rely and act upon it without hesitation in the most
6
important of your own affairs.” She argues the omission of the “crucial last sentence”
unconstitutionally diluted the reasonable doubt standard. We disagree.
The court’s instruction correctly described the “persuasion by which the
prosecution must convince the trier of all the essential elements of guilt.” In re Winship,
397 U.S. 358, 361 (1970) (internal quotations and citations omitted); see also United
States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648, 656-57 n.19 (1984) (describing the prosecution’s burden
of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt as “heavy”). At the same time, the instruction
correctly explained the Government need not prove Defendant’s guilt “beyond all
possible doubt.” See Jackson, 443 U.S. at 326 (explaining the Government need not rule
out every hypothesis except guilt to carry its burden). The district court’s instruction
then, again correctly, defined “reasonable doubt” as “a doubt based upon reason and
common sense after careful and impartial consideration of all the evidence in the case.”
See id. at 317 & n.9 (explaining reasonable doubt, at a minimum, is based upon reason
after consideration of all the evidence); Victor, 511 U.S. at 20-21 (approving of “common
sense” benchmarks when defining reasonable doubt). The district court’s instruction,
therefore, “correctly conveyed the concept of reasonable doubt to the jury.” Holland v.
United States, 348 U.S. 121, 140 (1954). The Due Process Clause requires no more.2 We
2
Defendant’s reliance on Monk v. Zelez, 901 F.2d 885 (10th Cir. 1990) (per
curiam) and Proctor v. United States, 685 A.2d 735 (D.C. 1996) to argue the contrary is
misplaced. The courts in Zelez and Proctor found instructional errors coupled with
inadequate reasonable doubt definitions unconstitutionally diluted the Government’s
(continued...)
7
thus conclude no reasonable likelihood exists that the jurors who determined Defendant’s
guilt applied the instructions in an unconstitutional manner. See Victor, 511 U.S. at 6.
B.
Defendant next argues the district court improperly allowed the Government to
introduce inadmissible substantive evidence under the guise of impeachment. The
Government called Mr. Clifton in its case-in-chief. He denied telling DEA agents that
Defendant obtained a cellular telephone for Mendoza. The Government subsequently
called Agent Tyree to testify. The prosecutor asked Agent Tyree about his conversation
with Mr. Clifton. Defendant objected, arguing the testimony constituted inadmissible
hearsay, improper impeachment, and its prejudicial effect outweighed its probative value.
See Fed. R. Evid. 802, 607, 613, 403. The district court overruled the objection, admitted
the evidence under Rule 613, and properly instructed the jury only to consider Agent
Tyree’s testimony in evaluating Mr. Clifton’s credibility and not for the truth of what he
may have said to the agents. Agent Tyree then testified Mr. Clifton informed him and
Agent West that Defendant purchased a cellular telephone for Mendoza. Defendant
claims the district court’s improper admission of Agent Tyree’s testimony under Rules
613 and 403 violated her Fifth Amendment right to due process. We disagree because
2
(...continued)
burden of proof. See Zelez, 901 F.2d at 890; Proctor, 685 A.2d at 740. No such
instructional errors existed in Defendant’s case and the district court’s instruction
contained an adequate definition of reasonable doubt.
8
(assuming the district court erred when it admitted Agent Tyree’s testimony) the alleged
error was harmless.
A non-constitutional error, such as the admission or exclusion of impeachment
evidence, is subject to harmless error analysis.3 United States v. Mitchell, 113 F.3d 1528,
1532 (10th Cir. 1997). “[A] non-constitutional error is harmless unless it had a
‘substantial influence’ on the outcome or leaves one in ‘grave doubt’ as to whether it had
such effect.” United States v. Griffin, 389 F.3d 1100, 1104 (10th Cir. 2004). “We review
the record as a whole de novo to evaluate whether the error is harmless, examining the
context, timing and use of the erroneously admitted evidence at trial and how it compares
to properly admitted evidence.” United States v. Magleby, 241 F.3d 1306, 1317 (10th
Cir. 2001) (internal quotations omitted). “[W]here the wrongly admitted evidence was
cumulative of other properly admitted evidence, it is less likely to have injuriously
influenced the jury’s verdict.” Wray v. Johnson, 202 F.3d 515, 526 (2d Cir. 2000).
3
At the outset, we reject Defendant’s argument that the district court’s evidentiary
rulings somehow violated the Due Process Clause in this case. We have consistently
reviewed impeachment issues, such as the one Defendant raises here, for an abuse of
discretion and not under the de novo standard reserved for, among other things,
constitutional questions. See United States v. Mitchell, 113 F.3d 1528, 1532 (10th Cir.
1997); United States v. Johnson, 977 F.2d 1360, 1381-82 (10th Cir. 1992); United States
v. Carter, 973 F.2d 1509, 1513 (10th Cir. 1992); see also United States v. Ince, 21 F.3d
576, 582 (4th Cir. 1994). Defendant relies solely upon a Sixth Circuit case to argue the
contrary. See United States v. Shoupe, 548 F.2d 636 (6th Cir. 1977). In Shoupe,
however, the Sixth Circuit held the prosecution’s recitation of the defendant’s entire
disavowed, unsworn prior statements in the form of leading questions violated the Fifth
Amendment’s Due Process Clause. Id. at 643-44. The Shoupe decision is therefore
distinguishable.
9
In this case, the admission of Agent Tyree’s testimony to impeach Mr. Clifton, if
error, was harmless. The Government presented overwhelming evidence Defendant
knowingly made false material declarations under oath before the grand jury. The
Government presented the agents’ testimony and Defendant’s telephone records to prove
she knowingly made false declarations. The agents testified Defendant initially informed
them she obtained the 5251-cell phone for Mendoza because he had credit problems.
Defendant’s telephone records supported the agents’ testimony. The records
demonstrated Defendant had a cellular telephone with the number 450-2562 (the “2562-
cell phone”) prior to February 2001. Defendant added the 5251-cell phone to her account
in February 2001 and made Mendoza an “authorized user” on that account in September
2001. Thereafter, over 2000 telephone calls were completed between the 2562-cell phone
and 5251-cell phone. Defendant had the bill for the 5251-cell phone mailed directly to
Mendoza’s address for several months in 2002.
The records also showed that, at times, both the 2562-cell phone and the 5251-cell
phone were being used simultaneously to make different telephone calls to different
numbers. Additionally, the records revealed the 5251-cell phone called members of
Mendoza’s family hundreds of times whereas the 2562-cell phone only placed one call to
a member of Mendoza’s family. Likewise, the 2562-cell phone called Defendant’s father
hundreds of times whereas the 5251-cell phone only placed two calls to Mr. Clifton.
Indeed, Defendant’s trial testimony, after the Government confronted her with the
10
telephone records, provided direct evidence that statements she made before the grand
jury were false. For example, Defendant testified that in light of the 5251-cell phone
records she “must have, you know, let somebody else use the phone[.]”
In short, the Government’s testimonial and documentary evidence (and we have
only summarized a portion of it) demonstrated, as the jury found, Defendant knowingly
made material false declarations to the grand jury regarding Mendoza’s use of the 5251-
cell phone. The challenged impeachment evidence was cumulative of the Government’s
other substantive evidence and therefore less likely to have injuriously influenced the
jury’s verdict. The district court also instructed the jury only to consider Agent Tyree’s
testimony in assessing Mr. Clifton’s credibility. We conclude, under these circumstances,
the district court’s admission of the impeachment evidence did not have a substantial
influence (if any) on the jury’s verdict.
C.
Defendant finally raises two challenges to her sentence. First, Defendant argues
the district court clearly erred when it calculated her base offense level under the
Guidelines.4 Second, Defendant argues her sentence violated the Sixth Amendment’s
4
The district court calculated Defendant’s offense level under the Guidelines as
follows: Pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2J1.3(c)(1), the district court first determined
Defendant’s false declarations under § 1623 were in respect to “a criminal offense,”
namely, the distribution of 1.4 kilograms of cocaine base (the “underlying offense”). The
court therefore applied § 2X3.1(a) and determined the base offense level for the
underlying offense was 30 under § 2D1.1(a)(3) because Defendant played a minimal role
(continued...)
11
jury trial guarantee because the district court found two facts, by a preponderance of the
evidence, that increased her sentence roughly threefold. See United States v. Booker, 125
S. Ct. 738 (2005); Blakely v. Washington, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004). Defendant specifically
claims the district court unconstitutionally found: (1) she knew or should have known at
the time of her grand jury testimony the underlying offense involved 1.4 kilograms of
cocaine, see U.S.S.G. § 2X3.1; and (2) she willfully obstructed justice. See id. § 3C1.1.
1.
The en banc Court has aptly summarized the Supreme Court’s holdings in Blakely
and Booker and we need not retread that ground here. See United States v. Gonzalez-
Huerta, No. 04-2045, 2005 WL 807008, *1-2 (10th Cir. April 8, 2005) (en banc).
Suffice it to say, under the Guidelines, the Sixth Amendment requires: “Any fact (other
than a prior conviction) which is necessary to support a sentence exceeding the maximum
authorized by the facts established by a plea of guilty or a jury verdict must be admitted
by the defendant or proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.” Booker, 125 S. Ct. at
4
(...continued)
in the cocaine distribution. The court then subtracted 6 from 30 under § 2X3.1(a),
resulting in a base offense level of 24. Finally, the court adjusted Defendant’s base
offense level downward four levels for her minimal participation in the criminal activity,
see U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(a), and upward two levels for her willful obstruction of justice. See
id. § 3C1.1. Defendant thus had a final offense level of 22 and a criminal history
category of I, resulting in a sentencing range of 41-51 months. The district court
sentenced Defendant at the bottom of the Guidelines range (41 months). We do not
express any opinion upon the district court’s calculation of Defendant’s offense level
under § 2J1.3 or the appropriateness of a mitigating role adjustment for Defendant under
§ 3B1.2(a).
12
756. Also, the remedial opinion in Booker rendered the Guidelines advisory. Id. at 757.
A pre-Booker sentencing court could therefore potentially commit two distinct types of
error: first, “a court could err by relying upon judge-found facts, other than those of prior
convictions, to enhance a defendant’s sentence mandatorily[;]” and second, “a sentencing
court could err by applying the Guidelines in a mandatory fashion, as opposed to a
discretionary fashion, even though the resulting sentence was calculated solely upon facts
that were admitted by the defendant, found by the jury, or based upon the fact of a prior
conviction.” Gonzalez-Huerta, 2005 WL 807008, at *3.
The latter “non-constitutional Booker error” is present in every post-Guidelines,
pre-Booker case while the former “constitutional Booker error” is only present in cases
where the sentencing court found facts by a preponderance of the evidence that increased
the defendant’s sentence beyond what the jury verdict or his guilty plea alone would
support. A case involving constitutional Booker error, however, will always involve non-
constitutional Booker error as well. In such a case, the non-constitutional Booker error
may compound the constitutional Booker error. If forfeited, both flavors of Booker error
are reviewed under the plain-error test. Gonzalez-Huerta, 2005 WL 807008, at *3
(reviewing a forfeited non-constitutional Booker error for plain error); United States v.
Dazey, Nos. 03-6187, 03-6205, 03-6208, 03-6228, 2005 WL 846227, *19 (10th Cir. April
13, 2005) (reviewing a forfeited constitutional Booker error for plain error). As a result,
we can only correct an alleged Booker error not raised in the district court if (1) the
13
sentencing court committed an actual error, (2) the error is plain or obvious, (3) the plain
error affects substantial rights, and (4) the plain error seriously affects the fairness,
integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. Gonzalez-Huerta, 2005 WL
807008, at *3. Non-constitutional and constitutional Booker errors satisfy the first two
prongs of the plain-error test. Id.; Dazey, 2005 WL 846227, at *19-20.
Under the third prong, in the context of either non-constitutional or constitutional
Booker error, a defendant can carry her burden of proving either error affected substantial
rights by demonstrating “a reasonable probability that, but for the error claimed, the result
of the proceeding would have been different.” Gonzalez-Huerta, 2005 WL 807008, at *3
(internal quotations omitted); Dazey, 2005 WL 846227, at *20. At least two ways exist in
which a defendant can carry her burden under the third prong of the plain-error test. First,
non-constitutional or constitutional Booker error may affect substantial rights if the
defendant shows “a reasonable probability that, under the specific facts of his case as
analyzed under the sentencing factors of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), the district court judge
would reasonably impose a sentence outside the Guidelines range.” Dazey, 2005 WL
846227, at *20 & n.4 (footnote 5 omitted). For example, a defendant can show a non-
constitutional Booker error affected substantial rights with evidence of (1) a disconnect
between the § 3553(a) factors and his sentence, and (2) the district court’s expressed
dissatisfaction with the mandatory Guidelines sentence in his case. United States v.
Trujillo-Terrazas, No. 04-2075, 2005 WL 846230, *3-4 (10th Cir. April 13, 2005); see
14
also Gonzalez-Huerta, 2005 WL 807008, at *5 (explaining a defendant can satisfy the
third prong of the plain-error test by demonstrating “the sentencing judge expressed
unhappiness on the record with the mandatory nature of the Guidelines as it relates to the
sentence in that particular case[.]”); Dazey, 2005 WL 846227, at *20 (same). Second,
constitutional Booker error may affect substantial rights “if the defendant shows a
reasonable probability that a jury applying a reasonable doubt standard would not have
found the same material facts that a judge found by a preponderance of the evidence[.]”
Id.
Finally, under the fourth prong, a defendant must demonstrate the Booker error
seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.
Gonzalez-Huerta, 2005 WL 807008, at *7. This is a demanding standard and we apply it
rigidly, refusing to notice non-constitutional Booker error unless the error is “particularly
egregious” and failure to notice the error would result in a “miscarriage of justice.” Id.
In the case of constitutional Booker error, however, we conduct the analysis “less
rigidly.” See United States v. James, 257 F.3d 1173, 1182 (10th Cir. 2001). A “less
rigid” analysis “means we do not require the exceptional showing required to remand a
case of non-constitutional error.” Dazey, 2005 WL 846227, at *23 (emphasis added).
To date, we have identified three non-exclusive factors to channel the exercise of
discretion under the fourth prong when faced with a plain Booker error that affects
substantial rights. First, a constitutional Booker error will be more freely noticed.
15
Compare Gonzalez-Huerta, 2005 WL 807008, at *8 (explaining the lack of a Sixth
Amendment violation weighed against the exercise of discretion) with Dazey, 2005 WL
846227, at *23 (explaining the existence of a Sixth Amendment violation weighed in
favor of the exercise of discretion); see also Gonzalez-Huerta, 2005 WL 807008, at *12
(Ebel, J., concurring in part, dissenting in part) (explaining a constitutional Booker error
is much more likely to cast judicial proceedings in disrespect and, therefore, more
difficult to uphold). Second, the strength or lack of evidence supporting the defendant’s
sentence under the Guidelines must be considered. Gonzalez-Huerta, 2005 WL 807008,
at *8 (finding the defendant’s Guidelines sentence without any mitigating evidence
justifying departure from the national norm, as reflected in his Guidelines sentence,
weighed against the exercise of discretion); Dazey, 2005 WL 846227, at *23 (finding the
defendant’s vigorous attack at his sentencing hearing on the judge-found facts that
increased his sentence weighed in favor of the exercise of discretion); cf. Cotton, 535
U.S. at 634 (refusing to notice a forfeited constitutional error where overwhelming and
uncontroverted evidence supported the defendant’s conviction); United States v.
Gonzalez Edeza, 359 F.3d 1246, 1251-52 (10th Cir. 2004) (same). Third, we may
consider whether the Booker error substantially increased the defendant’s sentence.
Compare Dazey, 2005 WL 846227, at *23 (finding a substantial increase in the
defendant’s sentence based upon judge-found facts weighed in favor of the exercise of
discretion) with Gonzalez-Huerta, 2005 WL 807008, at *8 (concluding the defendant’s
16
Guidelines sentence was not particularly egregious given, among other factors, the lack of
record evidence to support a lower sentence). The third factor is ordinarily not present
when a defendant raises non-constitutional Booker error, see id., but it may be considered
in the context of whether the objective consideration of the § 3553(a) factors warrant a
departure from the Guidelines sentence in the defendant’s case. See Trujillo-Terrazas,
2005 WL 846230, at *4.
2.
In this case, the district court found two facts by a preponderance of the evidence
that Defendant did not admit and the jury verdict alone did not support pursuant to the
then-mandatory Guidelines. The challenged obstruction finding under § 3C1.1 increased
Defendant’s sentence, but the reasonable-knowledge finding under § 2X3.1 did not. See
United States v. Lang, 364 F.3d 1210, 1220 (10th Cir. 2004), judgment vacated by 125 S.
Ct. 986 (2005), and reinstated in relevant part by 2005 WL 834669, *1 & n.1 (10th Cir.
April 12, 2005). Defendant did not raise her Blakely/Booker argument in the district
court.5 We thus review Defendant’s forfeited Booker error for plain error.
5
Defendant’s sentencing hearing occurred prior to the Supreme Court’s decisions
in Blakely and Booker. Therefore, Defendant argues we should review her
Blakely/Booker challenge de novo because an objection in the district court would have
been futile in light of pre-Blakely case law within this Circuit applying Apprendi to
preclude only sentences imposed above the statutory maximum provided by the statute of
conviction. The en banc Court rejected this line of reasoning, so we must do the same.
Gonzalez-Huerta, 2005 WL 807008, at *5, 7 (rejecting the argument that an intervening
Supreme Court decision which alters well-settled law precludes plain-error review).
17
The district court’s mandatory application of the Guidelines to enhance
Defendant’s sentence is clear or obvious error under current law. The Booker error also
affected Defendant’s substantial rights. She demonstrated a reasonable probability exists
that, but for the Booker error, the result of her sentencing proceeding would have been
different. The district judge stated, while calculating Defendant’s base offense level
under § 2J1.3(c)(1), that “if I had more discretion, I would impose a lower sentence.”
The district judge apparently believed Defendant’s offense level of 22 (and corresponding
sentencing range of 41-51 months) was too harsh in her case and that he would have liked
to sentence her at an offense level of 12 (with a corresponding sentencing range of 10-16
months) under § 2J1.3(a). Further, the district court sentenced Defendant at the bottom of
the Guidelines range notwithstanding his comment that he typically reserves the low end
of the Guidelines range for defendants who plead guilty. In sum, the district court
believed the Guidelines sentence in Defendant’s case did not adequately reflect the nature
and circumstances of her perjury offense. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1). Defendant has
thus demonstrated a reasonable probability exists the district judge would impose a
sentence outside the Guidelines range under the specific facts of her case.
Finally, we notice Defendant’s forfeited Booker error. The error is egregious in
this case because of the lack of evidence to support the entire sentence the Guidelines
required the district court to impose. To be sure, overwhelming evidence exists in the
record to support Defendant’s perjury conviction and, by necessary implication, the
18
district court’s obstruction finding under § 3C1.1. But the Guidelines required the district
court to impose more punishment than required for simple perjury. Because Defendant
obtained a cellular telephone for a drug dealer, and then lied to the grand jury about doing
so, the mechanistic Guidelines required the district court to sentence Defendant as an
“accessory after the fact” to the distribution of cocaine. U.S.S.G. §§ 2J1.3(c)(1),
2X3.1(a).
The Government candidly admitted at trial, however, that it did not have any
evidence of Defendant’s involvement in drug trafficking whatsoever and no evidence in
the record indicates Defendant knew Beal or Mendoza were involved in drug trafficking.
To sentence Defendant as an accessory when no evidence exists that she knowingly aided
the principals (Mendoza and Beal) in avoiding the consequences of distributing cocaine
offends traditional notions of fairness.6 See, e.g., Skelly v. United States, 76 F.2d 483,
6
At the grand jury proceedings, the Government informed Defendant the grand
jury was investigating “crack cocaine trafficking in Albuquerque.” The Government did
not, however, inform Defendant about the scope of the investigation (i.e., the quantity of
drugs under investigation). The dissent acknowledges that application of § 2J1.3(c)(1) to
a drug trafficking offense may be “unfair” when the perjurer only knows the grand jury is
investigating a drug offense and does not have any knowledge of the quantity of drugs
under investigation. (Dissent op. at 4-5). The dissent seeks to avoid this “problematic”
aspect of the case by relying upon facts the district judge found by a preponderance of the
evidence; namely, that Defendant knew the underlying offense involved 1.4 kilograms of
cocaine. (Id. at 4). The dissent finds solace in its position because “the Sentencing
Commission could reasonably and properly decide that for purposes of punishing perjury
the knowledge requirement should be relaxed.” We part ways with the dissent’s
analytical approach for two reasons. First, the approach reflects a pre-Booker outlook of
the sentencing framework by relying upon a now incorrect view of the Sentencing
(continued...)
19
487 (10th Cir. 1935) (explaining that, at common law, an accessory after the fact is one
who, knowing a felony to have been committed by another, receives, relieves, comforts,
or assists the felon in order to hinder the felon’s apprehension, trial, or punishment). The
district court nevertheless felt constrained under the then-mandatory Guidelines to
sentence Defendant as an accessory notwithstanding the dearth of evidence to support her
classification as one. Thus, a strong disconnect exists in this case between the sentence
imposed and Defendant’s “real conduct.” And an objective consideration of the
§ 3553(a) factors leads inescapably to the conclusion that the mandatory Guidelines
sentence does not reflect the seriousness of the offense in this case. See 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a)(2)(A); see also Trujillo-Terrazas, 2005 WL 846230, at *4 (explaining that to
allow a potential “mismatch between the sentence suggested by a principled application
of the post-Booker sentencing framework and the actual sentence given to [the defendant]
would call into question the fairness, integrity, and public reputation of judicial
proceedings.”).
6
(...continued)
Commission vis-à-vis the sentencing court. Second, and somewhat relatedly, the
dissent’s reliance upon facts found by a district judge under a preponderance of the
evidence standard to uphold an erroneous sentence that affects substantial rights produces
the anomalous result of affirming a sentence based upon an unconstitutional procedure.
The dissent’s analytical error is compounded where, as here, Defendant “vigorously
contested the judge-found facts that enhanced h[er] sentence.” Dazey, 2005 WL 846227,
at *23.
20
Moreover, we cannot ignore that the district court in this case would likely impose
a significantly lighter sentence on remand. Gonzalez-Huerta, 2005 WL 807008, at *13 &
n.4 (Ebel, J., concurring in part, dissenting in part). “A review of federal appellate
decisions considering whether to correct unobjected-to sentencing errors reveals that the
key concern has been whether correct application of the sentencing laws would likely
significantly reduce the length of the sentence.” United States v. Brown, 316 F.3d 1151,
1161 (10th Cir. 2003). On this record, therefore, we conclude the Guidelines process
failed, Gonzalez-Huerta, 2005 WL 807008, at *16 (Hartz, J., concurring), and to leave
standing this Booker error would result in a miscarriage of justice. Given our resolution
of this case, we need not address Defendant’s arguments that (1) the Booker error
constitutes structural error, or (2) she did not receive adequate pretrial notice of her
potential sentence in violation of the Due Process Clause.
III.
We AFFIRM the jury’s verdict that Defendant perjured herself in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 1623 and REMAND with instructions for the district court to vacate
Defendant’s sentence and resentence her in light of United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct.
738 (2005). The mandate shall issue forthwith.
21
04-2046, United States v. Clifton
HARTZ, Circuit Judge, concurring in part and dissenting in part:
I join fully in parts I, II A, and II B of Judge Baldock’s opinion. With regard to the
impeachment issue discussed in part II B, I write separately to raise a question about an
issue we did not need to address in resolving this appeal although it was briefed by the
parties. I respectfully dissent on the Booker issue.
I. Impeachment
Defendant complains about the admission into evidence of an out-of-court
statement by her father, Mr. Clifton, in which he allegedly said that Defendant had told
him that she had bought a cell phone for Jaime Mendoza. The ground for admission was
that it impeached contrary testimony by Mr. Clifton during direct examination by the
government. Defendant argues that the government’s primary purpose in introducing
evidence of the prior statement was not to impeach Mr. Clifton—that is, to convince the
jury that he was not credible—but to use the prior statement as substantive evidence—that
is, to persuade the jury that Defendant had in fact purchased the cell phone for
Mr. Mendoza, thereby establishing her perjury. The prior statement was not admissible as
substantive evidence because it was hearsay. See Fed. R. Evid. 801(c), (d)(1)(A).
Defendant relies, quite properly, on a line of Tenth Circuit cases including United States v.
Peterman, 841 F.2d 1474 (10th Cir. 1988), for the proposition that it would be improper
for the prosecution to proffer the prior inconsistent statement if the prosecution was
“introduc[ing] evidence under the guise of impeachment for the primary purpose of
placing before the jury substantive evidence which is not otherwise admissible.” Id. at
1479 (internal quotation marks omitted). Our circuit has not been alone in this view. See,
e.g., United States v. Zackson, 12 F.3d 1178, 1184 (2d Cir. 1993); United States v. Miller,
664 F.2d 94, 97 (5th Cir. 1981); United States v. Webster, 734 F.2d 1191, 1192 (7th Cir.
1984).
The Peterman rule strikes me as passing strange. Why should the admissibility of
evidence depend on the state of mind of the attorney proffering the evidence? To be sure,
the prosecutor’s motive plays a limited role in some legal issues: Racially motivated
peremptory jury challenges are prohibited, see Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986),
and a defendant cannot be retried after a mistrial caused by prosecutorial misconduct
intended to force a mistrial, see Oregon v. Kennedy, 456 U.S. 667 (1982). But it is hard to
find support in the Federal Rules of Evidence for considering attorney intent as a factor in
determining admissibility. Instead, as one would expect, we look at factors relating to the
probative and unfairly prejudicial impact of the evidence. Of course, the more such
prejudicial impact exceeds the probative value, the greater the likelihood that the
prosecutor’s motive in proffering the evidence was impure. But when the unfairly
prejudicial impact substantially predominates, we should not admit the evidence just
because the prosecutor’s thoughts are pure, nor should we exclude evidence on the ground
of prosecutorial obliquity when the probative value is not substantially outweighed by the
-2-
danger of unfair prejudice. There is significant authority for my view. See United States
v. Ince, 21 F.3d 576, 580 (4th Cir. 1994) (“Federal evidence law does not ask the judge . . .
to crawl inside the prosecutor’s head to divine his or her true motivation.”); United States
v. Buffalo, 358 F.3d 519 (8th Cir. 2004); 4 Jack B. Weinstein & Margaret A. Berger,
Weinstein’s Federal Evidence § 607.02 [2][b] (2d ed. 2004); 27 Charles Alan Wright &
Victor James Gold, Federal Practice and Procedure: Evidence § 6093 (1990)
(recommending Rule 403 approach to propriety of admitting impeachment evidence,
although suggesting that it may be useful to incorporate Rule 403 explicitly in Rule 607).
I trust that we will have occasion to revisit this issue.
II. Booker Issue
Perjury is always a serious crime. But not all perjury is equally serious. I think
almost everyone would agree that perjury to thwart a shoplifting investigation is not as
serious as perjury to thwart a murder investigation.
To incorporate this proposition in the calculation of the proper punishment for
perjury, the Sentencing Guidelines provide that “[i]f the offense involved perjury . . . in
respect to a criminal offense, apply § 2X3.1 (Accessory After the Fact) in respect to that
criminal offense, if the resulting offense level is greater than that determined above.”
USSG § 2J1.3(c)(1). Thus, when perjury occurs before a grand jury investigating an
offense, the perjurer will be treated as an accessory after the fact to the offense if that
treatment increases the offense level for the perjury. To be sure, the perjurer may not be,
-3-
strictly speaking, an accessory after the fact, because an accessory after the fact must
“know[] that [the] offense against the United States has been committed.” 18 U.S.C. § 3.
But the Sentencing Commission could reasonably and properly decide that for purposes of
punishing perjury the knowledge requirement should be relaxed. After all, perjury during
the investigation of a criminal offense undoubtedly “assists the offender in order to hinder
or prevent his . . . trial or punishment.” Id.
In this case the guidelines treated Defendant as if she were an accessory after the
fact to the crime of distributing 1.4 kilograms of cocaine base. The panel opinion
proclaims this as unfair in part because the government “did not have any evidence of
[her] involvement in drug trafficking whatsoever.” Op. at 19. It seems to me, however,
that her participation in trafficking is irrelevant. Indeed, one who participates in an
offense cannot also be an accessory after the fact to that offense. See 2 Wayne R. LaFave,
Substantive Criminal Law § 13.6(a), at 402-03 (2d ed. 2003).
What is relevant is that the perjurer know the severity of the crime being
investigated by the grand jury. In this regard, drug offenses may be problematic because
the offense’s severity depends on the quantity of drugs involved. If all that the perjurer
knew when testifying is that the grand jury was investigating a drug offense, it may well
be unfair to sentence the perjurer on the basis that the drug offense was a major narcotics
conspiracy rather than a street transaction.
-4-
But that is not a problem here. When Defendant first appeared before the grand
jury, she was informed that “[t]he criminal investigation that is being considered as we
speak is a drug trafficking investigation involving crack cocaine trafficking in
Albuquerque.” II. App. at 303. At her sentencing hearing both DEA agents testified that
when they originally interviewed Defendant they told her they were investigating the
source of about four pounds (actually three) of crack cocaine whose seizure had been
reported by the media. Although Defendant challenged the agents’ testimony, the
sentencing judge found that she knew or should have known that the investigation
concerned one to four kilograms of crack cocaine.
In my view this case does not present a breakdown of the guideline system.
Reasonable people may differ regarding the appropriate sentence in this case. The
sentencing judge himself expressed a desire to impose a lighter sentence. But there is not
in this case, as there was in United States v. Trujillo-Terrazas, No. 04-2075, slip op. (10th
Cir. Apr. 13, 2005), a peculiarity not accounted for in the guidelines. Accordingly, in
applying the fourth prong of the plain-error test, see United States v. Gonzalez-Huerta, No.
04-2045, slip. op. (10th Cir. Apr. 8, 2005); id. (Hartz, J., concurring), I see no purpose
served by a remand for resentencing except to accommodate the personal predilections of
the sentencing judge.
I would affirm the sentence.
-5-