Court Rules Against Provision Used To Beef Up Sentences For Jan. 6 Attackers

A Washington, D.C., court said Friday that a lower court was wrong to apply a provision boosting the punishment for a Texas man convicted in the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection at the U.S. Capitol — a ruling that could raise questions about many other Jan. 6 defendants’ sentences.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit said the so-called sentencing enhancement did not apply to one of Larry Brock’s six convictions for his participation in the Jan. 6 insurrection. Brock was briefly on the Senate floor during his 38 minutes in the U.S. Capitol during the attack — which the lower court found was enough to be considered “substantial interference with the administration of justice,” making him eligible for a harsher sentence.

The appeals court disagreed. “We hold that the ‘administration of justice’ enhancement does not apply to interference with the legislative process of certifying electoral votes,” said Judge Patricia Millett in a written opinion .

The case may be significant because that enhancement has been used by federal prosecutors in many other cases involving Jan. 6 insurrectionists. The Washington Post reported it could mean more than 100 could have to be resentenced.

The court sent Brock’s case back to district court so the sentence for his felony conviction for obstructing an official proceeding could be reassessed, this time without the enhancement. His initial sentence on that charge was 24 months in prison.

But the court left intact Brock’s five other convictions, with concurrent sentences of six to 12 months each and 24 months of probation.

Millett wrote in her opinion that the electoral certification process that the Jan. 6 rioters sought to interrupt was not the same as a judicial or