United States v. Halliday, No. 10-4200 (10th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Defendant Jordan Halliday challenged his sentence for criminal contempt for refusing to testify before a grand jury. The sentencing guideline provision for "contempt" requires the district court to "apply the most analogous offense guideline." The district court in this case applied the guideline for "obstruction of justice." Defendant argued the district court should have applied the provision for "failure to appear as a material witness." He also challenged his sentences as substantively unreasonable. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit found that the district court properly considered the analogous sentence Defendant would receive, and determined that the sentence was not unreasonable. Furthermore, the Court could not conclude that Defendant's sentence was manifestly unreasonable. Accordingly, the Court affirmed Defendant's sentence.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.