Andrew Golobic worked as an agent for Immigration and Customs Enforcement within the Alternatives-to-Detention program, where he had significant discretion over the monitoring and supervision of undocumented immigrants. He abused this authority by engaging in sexual conduct with at least six women under his supervision, violating agency policy. When one woman reported his behavior, Golobic attempted to impede the investigation by deleting digital evidence, instructing a colleague to remove a GPS monitor from a witness to secure her silence, and providing false statements to agency workers. A jury convicted him of multiple federal crimes, including violating constitutional rights under color of law, obstructing a sex-trafficking investigation, tampering with witnesses, and destroying records. The district court sentenced him to 144 months in prison.
Chief Judge Sutton wrote for the panel, addressing three primary categories of appeal. First, regarding the excusal of a juror during deliberations, the court applied an abuse-of-discretion standard. It found good cause existed because the juror fell ill, required hospitalization, and faced an uncertain recovery timeline. The court distinguished this from cases where jurors were excused for minor issues, noting the district court reasonably balanced the burden on remaining jurors against the need for a complete jury. Second, the court rejected the claim that the indictment was multiplicitous in violation of double jeopardy. Applying the Blockburger test, the court explained that each count required proof of a distinct element: obstructing a sex-trafficking investigation, tampering with a witness regarding a specific date, and destroying records. The court clarified that using the same evidence to prove distinct statutory violations does not constitute double jeopardy. Third, the court addressed sentencing challenges. It ruled that the obstruction of justice enhancement applies to conduct occurring before a formal investigation begins, citing a 2006 amendment to the Sentencing Guidelines that changed the language from 'during the course of' to 'with respect to' the investigation. Regarding the abduction enhancement, the court held that the jury's negative response to a kidnapping interrogatory was not an acquittal because kidnapping was not a charged offense. Finally, the court found no impermissible double counting in applying enhancements for abuse of authority, supervisory control, and victim vulnerability, as each targeted a distinct aspect of the defendant's conduct.
The decision affirms the 144-month sentence and the requirement for Golobic to register as a sex offender. It establishes that the obstruction of justice enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1 applies to pre-investigation conduct if the defendant acts with the intent to impede a future investigation. The ruling clarifies that a jury's non-unanimous response to a non-charged offense interrogatory does not trigger double jeopardy protections or preclude sentencing enhancements based on that conduct.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download