The issue here is the argument that he should not have been sentenced under reference to the guideline for disclosing the identity of an "covert" agent where neither he nor anyone else has been shown to have unlawfully disclosed the identity of a covert agent.

  Essentially, the argument was that it is unfair to apply the cross reference to § 2M3.9 (through 2X3.1 -acessory after the fact) where the prosecution was not required to prove the underlying offense was committed.

   The answer is that until a higher court says otherwise, this court has  determined the guidelines do not require proof of the underlying offense to allow the c-r in the obstruction guideline to be applied. It seems that this case now stands for the proposition that one who obstructs justice can be punished to a greater extent where he obstructs an investigation into a more serious offense based on the fact he knows the subject of the investigationand intentionally impedes it through an illegal act without proof of the fact that the investigation in question uncovers proof of the more serious crime.