finding that a sentence adjustment “was appropriate whether or not significant hindrance occurred” when the defendant provided false information to a magistrate judge at a detention hearing
How later courts described this case
- finding that a sentence adjustment “was appropriate whether or not significant hindrance occurred” when the defendant provided false information to a magistrate judge at a detention hearing
- observing that “[t]he right that section four confers on the government [to seek deletion or substitution] would be illusory if defense counsel were allowed to participate in section four proceedings because defense counsel would be able to see the information that the government asks the district court to keep from defense counsel’s view”
- noting that under application note 4(F), which provides for an obstruction-of-justice enhancement when an offender provides materially false information to a judge or magistrate judge, an enhanced sentence "[is] appropriate whether or not a significant hindrance occurred"
- stating that jury instructions are reviewed de novo as to whether they misstate the law, but the District Court is given wide latitude in crafting the language of the instruction
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
BIRCH, Circuit Judge,
specially concurring:
I concur in Judge Pryor’s opinion for the court. As evident from the dissent on the *1019 issue of conspiracy to commit murder, this issue presents a very close case. However, given our standards of review with regard to Hernandez’s conviction on Count 3, I conclude that the conviction should be affirmed.
I remain convinced, for all the reasons and facts set out in my prior dissent that the motion for change of venue should have been granted. See United States v. Campa, 459 F.3d 1121, 1155 (11th Cir.2006) (en banc). The defendants were subjected to such a degree of harm based upon demonstrated pervasive community prejudice that their convictions should have been reversed. The Supreme Court has not addressed the law concerning Fed. R.Crim.P. 21 motions for change of venue since Patton v. Yount, 467 U.S. 1025 , 104 S.Ct. 2885 , 81 L.Ed.2d 847 (1984). Given the technological advances and 24-hour news cycle that have become prevalent in our nation since 1984, I respectfully suggest that this case provides a timely and appropriate opportunity for the Court to address the issue of change of venue in this internet and media permeated century.