context: The district court also found that Olsen had instructed a co-conspirator not to provide information to law enforcement and told a co-defendant to "keep his mouth shut" while that codefendant was in prison. Each of these actions, as well as Olsen's decision to order a coconspirator to prevent a cooperating witness from testifying, would alone warrant the application of the obstruction of justice enhancement.
citation_a.signal: see
citation_a.identifier: 414 F.3d 845, 351-52
citation_a.parenthetical: upholding application of the obstruction of justice enhancement where defendant threatened to frame a co-conspirator for kidnapping if he testified
citation_a.sentence: See United States v. Agudelo, 414 F.3d 845, 351-52 (2d Cir.2005) (upholding application of the obstruction of justice enhancement where defendant threatened to frame a co-conspirator for kidnapping if he testified); see also United States v. Gaskin, 364 F.3d 438, 465-66 (2d Cir.2004) (sustaining application of the obstruction of justice enhancement where defendant told a potential witness that he planned to kill another potential witness, and the district court determined that this statement was intended to ensure the listener’s silence).
citation_b.signal: see also
citation_b.identifier: 364 F.3d 438, 465-66
citation_b.parenthetical: sustaining application of the obstruction of justice enhancement where defendant told a potential witness that he planned to kill another potential witness, and the district court determined that this statement was intended to ensure the listener's silence
citation_b.sentence: See United States v. Agudelo, 414 F.3d 845, 351-52 (2d Cir.2005) (upholding application of the obstruction of justice enhancement where defendant threatened to frame a co-conspirator for kidnapping if he testified); see also United States v. Gaskin, 364 F.3d 438, 465-66 (2d Cir.2004) (sustaining application of the obstruction of justice enhancement where defendant told a potential witness that he planned to kill another potential witness, and the district court determined that this statement was intended to ensure the listener’s silence).