United States v. Wells

111 F. App'x 273
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedOctober 12, 2004
Docket04-30272
StatusUnpublished

This text of 111 F. App'x 273 (United States v. Wells) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Wells, 111 F. App'x 273 (5th Cir. 2004).

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

Steven Robert Wells appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction for production of child pornography. Wells was sentenced to 151 months’ imprisonment to be followed by a three-year term of supervised release.

Wells argues that the district court clearly erred in making an adjustment to his offense level based on his obstruction of justice. There is evidence in the record that Wells attempted to destroy and discarded material evidence in the case. However, there was no specific evidence presented that Wells was aware that there was an investigation underway or about to commence at the time that Wells partially burned and discarded the evidence.

U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1 of the Sentencing Guidelines provides for a two-level increase in the defendant’s offense level if the defendant obstructs or impedes, or attempts to obstruct or impede, the administration of justice. The court has determined that “the guideline specifically limits applicable conduct to that which occurs during an investigation.” United States v. Clayton, 172 F.3d 347, 355 (5th Cir.1999). The defendant must also be aware of the *274 investigation. United States v. Lister, 53 F.3d 66, 71 (5th Cir.1995).

Because there was no evidence that Wells was aware that an investigation had commenced or was about to commence when he partially destroyed and disposed of the evidence, the district court clearly erred in making the adjustment for the obstruction of justice. United States v. Storm, 36 F.3d 1289, 1295 (5th Cir.1994). The sentence is VACATED and the case is REMANDED for resentencing in accord with the sentencing guidelines.

SENTENCE VACATED AND REMANDED.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
111 F. App'x 273, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-wells-ca5-2004.