United States v. Stenson

Citations: 741 F.3d 827; 2014 WL 265759; 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 1424Docket: No. 13-1329

Court: Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit; January 23, 2014; Federal Appellate Court

Lead Opinion SummaryLead Opinion Original

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

A jury convicted Nicholas Stenson of possessing a firearm as a felon. During sentencing, the district court applied a two-level obstruction of justice enhancement, concluding Stenson committed perjury while testifying. Stenson contested both the constitutionality and applicability of this enhancement. 

On July 10, 2011, police conducted a suppression detail in Rockford, where they approached a group of individuals next to a green Pontiac. Upon police arrival, Stenson fled towards the back of the car, where witnesses observed him reach into his waistband and discard an object that appeared to be a firearm. Officers found two guns under the vehicle, one linked to Stenson. The trial focused solely on whether Stenson possessed a firearm that day. 

Key testimonies from several officers indicated that they saw Stenson discard an object that sounded metallic, which was later identified as a handgun. Stenson contended that he had dropped his cell phone instead of a gun. He testified that he was using his phone at the time of the police encounter and denied ever possessing a firearm. The jury found him guilty, and the Presentence Investigation Report indicated a base offense level of 24. The government sought a two-point enhancement for obstruction of justice, arguing Stenson had perjured himself. The district court identified multiple instances of perjury in Stenson's testimony and ultimately deemed the officers’ accounts more credible.

Stenson's trial demeanor contributed to the court's determination that he provided false testimony, which was deemed material because it could have exonerated him had the jury accepted it. The court concluded that his false testimony was intentional, not a result of confusion or faulty memory, and sustained the government's objection to the Presentence Report (PSR), applying a two-level obstruction of justice enhancement that raised Stenson's offense level to 26. He received a 120-month prison sentence.

Stenson challenged the constitutionality of U.S.S.G. 3C1.1, which allows for sentence enhancement if a defendant willfully obstructs justice, such as through perjury. The court affirmed that perjury involves providing false testimony under oath with the intent to deceive. For the enhancement to apply, the district court must find false testimony, materiality, and willful intent. Stenson argued that the enhancement infringed on his right to a fair trial by forcing him to choose between testifying and risking an obstruction enhancement. However, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of 3C1.1, emphasizing that it does not prevent defendants from testifying but penalizes those who commit perjury. The court cited several precedents reaffirming that the enhancement does not violate constitutional rights and concluded there was no constitutional error in applying 3C1.1 to Stenson's case.

Stenson further contended that the enhancement was unwarranted since his testimony was merely a general denial of guilt. The court indicated that it would review the sufficiency of the obstruction findings de novo and assess the underlying factual findings for clear error.

Reversal for clear error occurs only when there is a firm conviction that a mistake has been made. A simple denial of culpability does not warrant an obstruction of justice enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1. However, if a defendant testifies and commits perjury, this can lead to an enhanced sentence for obstructing justice. The court may apply this enhancement if the defendant knowingly provides false testimony regarding a material fact, rather than being confused or mistaken. In this case, the key issue was whether Stenson possessed a firearm found under a vehicle. Stenson not only denied possession but claimed that what the police saw was his cell phone. The court deemed Stenson's testimony incredible given the evidence presented and concluded that his false testimony was material and intentional. Consequently, the obstruction of justice enhancement was applied, and the court found no clear error in this determination. The sentence imposed by the district court was affirmed.