What is the current state of the law on double-counting under an obstruction of justice enhancement?

⁷ Although we have not extensively addressed double-counting relative to an obstruction of justice enhancement, other courts have rejected analogous challenges. See United States v. Yielding, 657 F.3d 688, 717 (8th Cir.2011) (observing that grouping is designed to prevent double-counting by ensuring that the obstructive conduct is taken into account only once: as a two-level adjustment to the base offense level for the underlying offense, or as the offense level provided for the obstruction offense itself) (citation omitted); see also United States v. Fiore, 381 F.3d 89, 95 (2d Cir.2004) (holding that this [grouping] formula ensures the two-point enhancement does not constitute double-counting because when closely related counts are grouped under section 3D1.2(c), the offense level used is that for the most serious counts) (citation, alterations, and internal quotation marks omitted); United States v. Maggi, 44 F.3d 478, 482 (7th Cir.1995) (rejecting the implication that the enhancement somehow imposed duplicative punishment for ... obstructive conduct. The enhancement is used merely to determine the applicable Guidelines range) (citation omitted).

⁷ Although we have not extensively addressed double-counting relative to an obstruction of justice enhancement, other courts have rejected analogous challenges. See United States v. Yielding, 657 F.3d 688, 717 (8th Cir.2011) (observing that grouping is designed to prevent double-counting by ensuring that the obstructive conduct is taken into account only once: as a two-level adjustment to the base offense level for the underlying offense, or as the offense level provided for the obstruction offense itself) (citation omitted); see also United States v. Fiore, 381 F.3d 89, 95 (2d Cir.2004) (holding that this [grouping] formula ensures the two-point enhancement does not constitute double-counting because when closely related counts are grouped under section 3D1.2(c), the offense level used is that for the most serious counts) (citation, alterations, and internal quotation marks omitted); United States v. Maggi, 44 F.3d 478, 482 (7th Cir.1995) (rejecting the implication that the enhancement somehow imposed duplicative punishment for ... obstructive conduct. The enhancement is used merely to determine the applicable Guidelines range) (citation omitted).