Thursday, February 01, 2024

Remand Required Due to “Opaque” Ruling on Obstruction Enhancement

US v. Pettus: Pettus stole a gold chain from a man named Salley, who chased him, caught him, and started beating him up. Pettus pulled a gun and Salley backed off. About an hour later they saw each other again and Pettus fired several times in Salley’s direction. Pettus then ran to a nearby parking garage and secreted the gun in the wheel well of a parked car. Police arrived, Salley identified Pettus as the robber, and they found the gun shortly thereafter. Pettus pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm and was sentenced to 108 months in prison, within the advisory Guideline range calculated at sentencing.

On appeal, the Fourth Circuit vacated Pettus’ sentence and remanded for further proceedings. Among the enhancements applied at sentencing was one for obstruction of justice based on Pettus hiding the gun. The court found the district court’s ruling overruling Pettus’ objection to that enhancement to be “opaque” such that it “prevents us from determining whether the matters in disputed are mainly factual or legal.” It noted that the district court mentioned “concealment” as the basis for the enhancement, but that the Guideline does not support the enhancement on that basis if the concealment was contemporaneous with the arrest. “The problem is that, on this record,” the court held, “we cannot tell how (or even if) the district court answered those questions.” On remand, the court pointed out, the district court should make its ruling on the record as it currently exists, without the Government having a chance to bolster it.

Congrats to the Defender office in WDNC on the win!

No comments: