United States v. James Marty Stafford

831 F.2d 1479 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James Marty STAFFORD, Defendant-Appellant. No. 86-5268. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted May 4, 1987. Decided Nov. 6, 1987. Gary A. Feess, Los Angeles, Cal., for plaintiff-appellee. James T. Duff, Los Angeles, Cal., for defendant-appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Before PREGERSON, NELSON and WIGGINS, Circuit Judges. WIGGINS, Circuit Judge: 1 James Stafford appeals the district court's imposition of two consecutive four-year sentences under 18 U.S.C. Secs. 1510 (obstruction of criminal investigations) and 1952 (interstate travel in aid of racketeering enterprises). Stafford contends that Congress did not intend to punish his conduct under both statutes and that the district court therefore should have vacated one of the sentences. We affirm. BACKGROUND 2 Stafford pled guilty to Counts 21 and 22 of the indictment. Count 22 charged that he violated 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1510 by "willfully endeavor[ing] by means of bribery" to prevent a witness in Louisiana from informing the FBI of certain federal criminal offenses. Count 21 charged…

James Stafford appeals the district court’s imposition of two consecutive four-year sentences under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1510 (obstruction of criminal investigations) and 1952 (interstate travel in aid of racketeering enterprises). Stafford contends that Congress did not intend to punish his conduct under both statutes and that the district court therefore should have vacated one of the sentences. We affirm.

BACKGROUND

Stafford pled guilty to Counts 21 and 22 of the indictment. Count 22 charged that he violated 18 U.S.C. § 1510 by “willfully endeavoring] by means of bribery” to prevent a witness in Louisiana from informing the FBI of certain federal criminal offenses. Count 21 charged that Stafford violated 18 U.S.C. § 1952 (“Travel Act”) by (1) traveling from California to Louisiana with the intent to commit an unlawful activity, namely the offense charged in Count 22; and (2) actually committing that offense.

The district court sentenced Stafford to four years confinement on each count, with the sentences to run consecutively. Stafford moved the court pursuant to Fed.R. Crim.P. 35(a) to vacate either one of the two sentences on the ground that Congress did not intend to punish his…

dissenting.

I do not join in the majority opinion because I do not agree that proof of a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1510 (a) requires facts separate from those required for proof of a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1952 . Therefore, I believe that appellant Stafford cannot be subject to two consecutive prison sentences.

*1486 Absent Congressional intent, express or implied, regarding separate punishment for overlapping federal crimes, we employ the rule of statutory construction announced in Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 , 52 S.Ct. 180 , 76 L.Ed. 306 (1932). Blockburger provides “where the same act or transaction constitutes a violation of two distinct statutory provisions, the test to be applied to determine whether there are two offenses or one, is whether each provision requires proof of a fact which the other does not.” Id. at 304, 52 S.Ct. at 182 (emphasis added); see Whalen v. United States, 445 U.S. 684 , 100 S.Ct. 1432 , 63 L.Ed.2d 715 (1980) (reversing the imposition of consecutive sentences for rape and felony murder when rape was the felony used to establish felony murder).

The majority concludes that section. 1510(a) and section 1952 are separate offenses for…