United States of America v. Scott Michael Bowman

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
SCOTT MICHAEL BOWMAN,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 16-50338
D.C. No.
5:15-cr-00047-JGB-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Jesus G. Bernal, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 16, 2018**
Pasadena, California
Before: McKEOWN and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges, and MENDOZA,***
District Judge.
FILED
FEB 22 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
*** The Honorable Salvador Mendoza, Jr., United States District Judge
for the Eastern District of Washington, sitting by designation.

-- 1 of 3 --

Scott Michael Bowman appeals his thirty-six month sentence imposed
following his guilty plea to obstruction of justice, conversion, falsification of
records, and witness tampering. Interpretation of the sentencing guidelines is
reviewed de novo, factual findings are reviewed for clear error, and application of
the sentencing guidelines to the facts of the case is reviewed for abuse of
discretion. United States v. Job, 871 F.3d 852, 868 (9th Cir. 2017); United States
v. Cruz-Mendez, 811 F.3d 1172, 1175 (9th Cir. 2016). We have jurisdiction
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
The obstruction of justice sentencing guideline, United States Sentencing
Guideline (“U.S.S.G.”) § 2J1.2, instructs courts to cross-reference to the guidelines
applicable to the offense that was obstructed when calculating sentencing guideline
ranges. U.S.S.G. § 2J1.2(c)(1). Here, the district court properly cross-referenced
to U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1, the drug trafficking guideline, to calculate Bowman’s
sentence. By pleading guilty to obstruction of justice as charged in the indictment,
Bowman admitted that he corruptly obstructed, influenced, and impeded an official
proceeding in June 2014 by taking confiscated money. See United States v. Broce,
488 U.S. 563, 570 (1989); McCarthy v. United States, 394 U.S. 459, 466 (1969).
The only possible “official proceeding” within the meaning of 18 U.S.C.
§ 1512(c)(2) that Bowman’s action could have obstructed, influenced, or impeded
2

-- 2 of 3 --

was the prosecution based on the methamphetamine distribution organization
operating where the money was confiscated. Because the offense level for drug
trafficking was greater than the one specified in the obstruction of justice
guideline, the district court properly applied the cross-reference to calculate
Bowman’s guideline sentence range. U.S.S.G. § 2J1.2(a), (c)(1).
AFFIRMED.
3

-- 3 of 3 --