Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals - Published Opinions

Tuesday, March 28, 2006

Massey: Obstruction of Justice Enhancement Affirmed

n U.S. v. Massey, No. 05-11514 (March 23, 2006), the Court affirmed an 87-month sentence following a guilty plea to conspiracy to import 100 grams or more of heroin and assault on a federal officer. However, the Court vacated the judgment and remanded for the limited purpose of correcting a clerical error in the judgment. In affirming the sentence, the Court rejected Massey's claim that the district court improperly adjusted her guidelines calculation by including an upward adjustment for obstruction of justice. Massey claimed that she did not wilfully obstruct justice and that any obstruction was not sufficiently material to warrant the adjustment. Massey was one of three women suspected of being internal drug smugglers from Ecuador. All three were taken to the hospital. Massey refused to have anything removed from her vaginal canal. At the hospital, Massey was physically and verbally abusive to medical staff and law enforcement officers. Eventually, Massey, while attempting to remove an object herself, ripped the object and went into medical distress caused by the heroin that had leaked inside her. She went into respiratory arrest and was placed on a respirator. She eventually recovered. A search of her hospital room revealed that she had previously removed two other objects, containing heroin, and had hidden them in her pillow. She had also ripped a hole in her mattress. At sentencing, Massey argued that she suffered from a bipolar disorder and that she had not receive her medication while at the hospital. She thus argued that as a result of her un-medicated bipolar disorder and heroin overdose, her actions at the hospital were not willful. She also argued that her actions in hiding the two objects in the bed she was handcuffed to did not material hinder the investigation of her offense because their discovery was inevitable and the information was already known based on x-rays taken before she removed any objects. Reviewing for clear error, the Court rejected both arguments.