Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-03018/USCOURTS-ca10-91-03018-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Donald George Hoffman
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

vs. No. 91-3018 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

JUN 6 1991 

&OBERT L. HOECK.ER 

Clerk 

DONALD GEORGE HOFFMAN, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

(D.C. No. 89-20020-01) 

(D. Kan.) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before LOGAN, MOORE and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges.** 

Defendant-appellant appeals from his sentence following 

conviction of making and possessing counterfeit obligations in 

violation of 18 u.s.c. §§ 471, 472 and 474. Defendant received a 

two-level upward adjustment for obstruction of justice on the 

ground that he had made untruthful statements or had testified 

untruthfully as to material facts at trial. See United States 

Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual§ 3Cl.1 (Nov. 1990). We 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

** After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a): 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause therefore is ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Appellate Case: 91-3018 Document: 010110118817 Date Filed: 06/06/1991 Page: 1 
affirmed defendant's conviction, but remanded the case for 

resentencing because the district court's two-level upward 

adjustment for obstruction of justice was not supported by an 

adequate finding concerning false statements. United States v. 

Hoffman, No. 89-3243, unpub. order at 6-7 (10th Cir. Oct. 9, 

1990). On remand, the district court adopted two paragraphs in 

the presentence report referring to defendant's false statements 

and resentenced him with the same two-level upward adjustment 

under u.s.s.G. § 3Cl.1. 

The Sentencing Guidelines allow for a two-level increase in 

offense level "[i]f the defendant willfully obstructed or impeded, 

or attempted to obstruct or impede, the administration of justice 

during the investigation, prosecution, or sentencing of the 

instant offense ••.. " u.s.s.G. § 3Cl.1. The defendant's testimony 

and statements must be evaluated in light most favorable to the 

defendant, id., comment (n.1), but the district court is not 

required to accept the completely inconsistent, patently false or 

wholly fabricated. A jury verdict against a defendant who 

testifies or a mere conflict in the testimony is not sufficient to 

demonstrate false testimony under§ 3Cl.1; accordingly, the 

district court should explain why it perceives the testimony as 

false. United States v. Akitoye, 923 F.2d 221, 228-29 (1st Cir. 

1991); United States v. Beaulieu, 900 F.2d 1531, 1536 (10th Cir.) 

cert. denied, 110 S. Ct. 3253 (1990). Highly detailed findings 

are not required; a statement that overwhelming evidence at trial 

flatly contradicted the defendant's explanation will suffice. Id. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 91-3018 Document: 010110118817 Date Filed: 06/06/1991 Page: 2 
\ 

at 1535-36. In reviewing a district court's decision to adjust 

upward pursuant to§ 3Cl.1, "we must 'give due regard to the 

opportunity of the district court to judge the credibility of the 

witnesses, and shall accept the findings of fact of the district 

court unless they are clearly erroneous and shall give due 

deference to the district court's application of the guidelines to 

the facts.'" Id. at 1535 (quoting 18 u.s.c. § 3742(e)). 

On remand, the district court adopted those paragraphs of the 

presentence report concerning defendant's mendacity, thereby 

remedying the defect in the original sentencing proceeding. See 

Hoffman, unpub. order at 5-6. On this record, the district court 

was not obliged to make more specific findings supporting the 

upward adjustment; adoption of the pertinent paragraphs in the 

presentence report indicates that the above standards were 

employed and is sufficient. See Akitoye, 923 F.2d at 229. Thus, 

the district court satisfied the requirements of our mandate. Its 

conclusion that defendant lied and obstructed justice is not 

clearly erroneous. Consequently, the two-level upward adjustment 

pursuant to§ 3Cl.1 of the Guidelines is appropriate. 

AFFIRMED. 

Entered for the Court 

Bobby R. Baldock 

Circuit Judge 

-3-

Appellate Case: 91-3018 Document: 010110118817 Date Filed: 06/06/1991 Page: 3