WASHINGTON (CN) — A D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals panel sided with a Capitol rioter on Friday, finding that his sentence had been improperly lengthened after a lower court applied an enhancement for interfering with the administration of justice.
The decision opens up the door for more defendants to challenge their convictions under felony obstruction charges related to their participation in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol. It could also force district judges presiding over the cases to recalculate or reduce their sentences.
Larry Brock, a retired Air Force lieutenant, brought the challenge after he was sentenced in March 2023 to 24 months in prison.
Images from Jan. 6 show Brock on the Senate floor, wearing a combat helmet and tactical vest with plastic zip-tie handcuffs. In the days leading up to the riot, he made threatening statements on social media and posted an eight-point “plan of action” that included seizing and torturing lawmakers from both parties and eliminating national media figures.
Following a bench trial, U.S. District Judge John Bates, a George W. Bush appointee, convicted Brock of felony obstruction of an official proceeding and four misdemeanor charges.
At sentencing, Bates also applied an enhancement to Brock’s obstruction of an official proceeding conviction for “substantial interference with the administration of justice." The judge found the enhancement applied to Brock’s part in blocking Congress from certifying the 2020 election results.
Federal sentencing guidelines allow judges to apply the enhancement in cases where defendants disrupt judicial proceedings like grand jury investigations or court hearings. The enhancement can increase sentences by more than a year.
But on Friday, a three-judge panel made up of U.S. Circuit Judges Cornelia Pillard, Patricia Millett and Judith Rogers — Barack Obama appointees and a Bill Clinton appointee, respectively — disagreed with Bate’s interpretation.
“With great respect to our district court colleagues’ thoughtfully reasoned efforts to apply this guideline, we hold that … ‘administration of justice’ refers to judicial, quasi-judicial and adjunct investigative proceedings,” Millett wrote in the panel's opinion. It "does not extend to the unique congressional function of certifying electoral college votes."
That ruling could have big implications for other Jan. 6 cases. Patricia Hartman, a spokesperson for the Washington U.S. attorney’s office, said in a statement that the enhancement has been applied in more than 100 other such cases.
The panel ordered that Brock’s sentence be partially vacated and remanded to the district court for resentencing — providing a likely path that additional Jan. 6 defendants can follow to challenge their sentences as well.
The Justice Department has not said whether it would appeal the decision. A challenge would be heard by either the full 11-judge bench of the court or the Supreme Court.
Federal judges in Washington have routinely sentenced Jan. 6 defendants well below the recommendations of Justice Department prosecutors
Among them are leaders of the Oath Keepers and the Proud Boys — two extremist groups involved in the riots. Oath Keeper founder Stewart Rhodes received 18 years rather than the 25 prosecutors wanted. Enrique Tarrio, leader of the Proud Boys, was sentenced to 22 years rather than 18 years.
In his appeal, Brock also asked the appeals court to vacate his conviction for obstruction of an official proceeding — a charge that has since become a staple in the Justice Department’s prosecution of the Capitol riot. Donald Trump faces the same charge, along with conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, in his still-delayed criminal case over his efforts to overturn the 2020 election.
Brock argued that the statute, which was created in the wake of the Enron scandal to cover conduct like the shredding of documents by Enron’s accounting firm while under investigation, only applies to the destruction of evidence and should not apply in his case.
On this front, the panel soundly rejected his argument.
Millett cited the court’s previous decision in another Jan. 6 appeal, United States v. Fischer, which held that the charge is not “limited to evidence-related acts.” The Supreme Court agreed in December to review Fischer’s case and consider the charge's scope.
Brock also argued that his conduct failed to meet the requirement that a defendant act "corruptly" and thus should be overturned.
At oral arguments in September, Brock's attorney, Charles Burnham of the D.C.-based firm Burnham & Gorokhov, explained that Brock wanted to ensure the 2020 election certification was not tainted by fraudulent votes.
Therefore, Burnham said, he believed in good faith that what he was doing was right — even if he understood that his actions broke the law.
The panel again rejected that argument, finding that Brock's violent conduct was "plainly unlawful and therefore corrupt."
The panel's decision is the latest obstacle for Justice Department prosecutions stemming from the Jan. 6 Capitol riot — and especially for special counsel Jack Smith's case against Trump, which has been on pause since Dec. 13.
The case will remain on pause until the Supreme Court decides whether Trump does have criminal immunity due to his time in office, with a trial unlikely to begin until the fall.
Follow @Ryan_Knappy
Subscribe to Closing Arguments
Sign up for new weekly newsletter Closing Arguments to get the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and hot cases and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world.
Additional Reads
-
A dangerous man named Kennedy April 26, 2024 -
