Case ID: f-appx_698/html/0416-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Edward Lee SULLIVAN, a.k.a. Three Stacks, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 16-10509
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted September 26, 2017 
    
    SEPTEMBER 29, 2017
    Jonas Lerman, Assistant U.S., J. Douglas Wilson, Assistant U.S., DOJ-USAO, San Francisco, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    John J. Jordan, Law Offices of John J. Jordan, San Francisco, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
      
         The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Edward Lee Sullivan appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 324-month sentence imposed upon remand for resentencing following his bench-trial conviction for production of child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a); and possession of child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(4). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Sullivan contends that the district court erred by applying an.obstruction of justice enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1. We review the district court’s factual findings for clear error and its application of the Guidelines to the facts for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Gasca-Ruiz, 852 F.3d 1167, 1170 (9th Cir. 2017) (en banc). Contrary to Sullivan’s contention, the district court made sufficient factual findings to support the enhancement, including a finding that Sullivan willfully gave false testimony on a material matter at trial. See United States v. Jimenez-Ortega, 472 F.3d 1102, 1103 (9th Cir. 2007) (discussing the required elements, for an obstruction of justice enhancement); see also U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1 cmt. n.4(F) (enhancement is proper when defendant provides “materially false information to a judge”).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.