F ILED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS EL EV EN TH C IRC UIT March 6, 2008 T HOMA S K. KA HN CLERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN THCIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 07- 1117 3 Non-Argum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Dock etNo. 0 6- 20 64 6- CR-F AM UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A,
Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us MARTIN A. TINOCO MANZANARES, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the S outhe rnD istri ct

of F lor ida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (Marc h 6, 2008 ) Be fo re MA RC U S, W IL SO Nand KRAV IT CH , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M: Martin T inoco-Manzanares, convicted of kno wingly using a fr audulent v isa,2

in v iol at ionof

18 U
. S. C. § 15 46( a) , appe al s hi s se nte nc e of 24 months’ im pr iso nm en t. On appeal, Manzanar es-T inoco argues that (1) his sentence - which was doub le the high end o f the guidelines range - w as unreasonable; (2) the court im pr ope rl y appl ie d an e nhanc em en t f or obs tr uc tio n of j ust ic e ba se d onhis te sti m ony at tri al ; and ( 3) the c ourt i m pr ope rl y m ad e fa ct

ua l f ind ing s th at

w er e not pr ove n to aj ur

y be y ond a re as ona

ble doubt. 1. Re as ona

ble ne ss W e re vie wthe f

ina l se nte nc e im

pose d by the dis tr ic t c ourt f

or reasonableness. United States v. W ining ear, 422 F.3d 1241 , 1244 (11th Cir. 2005 ). Appellate courts sho uld appl y an abuse of discretion standard when
co nduc tin g r ea sona

ble ne ss r ev ie wwhe the r the se nte nc e is i nsi de , out sid e, or sig nif ic an tly out sid e the Guid el ine s r an ge . G al l v. U nit ed S tate s, 128 S
. Ct
. 586 , 591 (2 007)
. Ase nte nc e m ay be r ev ie w ed

f or pr oc ed ur al or sub stanti ve unr ea sona

ble ne ss, and a

se nte nc e m ay

be sub stanti ve ly

unr ea sona

ble r eg ar dle ss o f the procedure used. United States v. Hunt, 459 F.3d 118 0, 1182 n. 3 (11th Cir. 2006 ). “ O ur

r ev ie wf or r ea sona ble ne ss i s de fe re nti al
. ” U nit ed S tate s v. T hom as , 446 F.3d 134 8, 1351 (11th Cir. 2006 ) (internal quotation om itted). A fter United States v. Booker, 543 U. S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.E d.2d 621 (200 5), a districtThe § 3553(a) fa ctors include: ( 1) the nature a nd circ umstances of

the offe nse and the 1 history and cha rac teristics of the de fenda nt; (2) the nee d for the se ntence (A) to r efle ct the seriousness of the offe nse, to promote re spect for the law, a

nd to provide just punishment for the offe nse, (B ) to aff

ord ade quate de terre nce to c riminal conduct, (C) to pr otect the public f rom further crimes of the def endant, a nd (D) to pr ovide the def

endant with nee ded tra ining or medical car e; (3) the kinds of sentenc es ava ilable; (4) the Sente ncingGuidelines ra ng e; (5) pe rtinent policy statements of the Sente ncingCommi ssion; (6) the nee d to avoid unwar rante d sentenc ing disparities; and (7) and the ne ed to provide r estitution t o victims. S ee 18 U .S.C. § 3553(a)(1)
- (7). 3 court, in determining a re asonable sentence, m ust cons ider the corr ectly calculated advisory guidelin es range and the fa ctors set forth in 18 U. S. C. § 355 3(a). United 1 St at es v. Val no r, 45 1 F .3d74 4, 7 49 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ). In iti al ly , w e m

ust e nsur e that the dis tr ic t c ourt c om m itt ed no s ign if ic an t pr oc ed ur al e rr or , suc h a s “ fa ili ng t o c al cu late ( or im pr ope rl y c al cu latin g) the G uid el ine s r an ge , tr eatin g th e G uid el ine s a s m an dator y , f ai lin g to c onsi de r the [ 18 U
. S. C. ] § 35 53( a) f

ac tor s, se le ct ing ase nte nc e ba se d onc le ar ly e rr one ous fa ct s, or fa ili ng t o a de quate ly

e xpl ai n th e ch ose n se nte nc e- inc lud ing an e xpl an at ionf or any de viatio n f

ro m the Guid el ine s r an ge . ” G al l, 128 S
. Ct
. at 59 7. I f the se nte nc ing
co urt’ s de ci sio n w as pr oc ed ur al ly sound, w e the n “ co nsi de r the sub stanti ve reasonableness of the sentence im posed un der an abuse-of- discretion stand ard. ” Id
. District c ourt judges m ust giv e serious consideration to the extent of a de part ur e an d m

ust e xpl ai n th ei r co nc lus ion s w ithsuf fi ci en t j ust if

ic at ion s a s to4

why an unusu ally

harsh or lenient sentence is appropriate. Id. at 594, 597. In review ing th e re asonableness o f a sentence outsid e the Guidelin es range, we m ay take the de gr ee of

vari an ce int o a cc ount

and c onsi de r the e xte nt o f the de viatio n fr om the Guid el ine s. I d. at 59 4- 95. H ow ev er , w e ar e pr ohi bit ed f ro m r equir ing

“ ex tra or di na ry ” ci rcu m st an ces to jus ti fy a se nt en ce o ut si de th e Gui de li ne s ra ng e. Id
. at 59 5. T he f

ac t that w e m igh t r ea sona bly c onc lud e that a

dif fe re nt s en te nc e is ap pr opr iate is ins uf

fi ci en t t o j ust if

y r ev er sa l. I d. at 59 7. H er e, the dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t c om m it any pr oc ed ur al or sub stanti ve e rr or a s i tc a l c u l a t e d

th e Gu i d e l i n e s c o rr e c t l y, t r e a t e dth e Gu i d e l i n e s a s a dv i s o ry, considered relevant § 3553 (a) factors, and explained why it im posed a sentence ab ov e th e ran ge .

2. O bstru ct ionE nhanc em en t Whe n adi st ric t co urt i m

po se s an en ha nc em en t fo r ob st ru ct io n o f jus ti ce, we re vie wthe dis tr ic t c ourt’ s f ac tua l f ind ing s f or c le ar e rr or and i ts a ppl ic at ionof

the Se nte nc ing Guid el ine s to tho se f ac ts d e novo . Unit ed

S tate s v. Ma sse y , 443 F
. 3d 81 4, 8 18 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ). Section 3C1.1 of the guidelines prov ides for a tw o-level enhancem ent if: (A ) the de fe ndant w ill fu lly obs tr uc te d or im pe de d, or atte m pte d to obstru ct or im pe de , the a dm ini str at ionof j ust ic e dur ing the c our se of the inv es tig at ion , pr ose cutio n, or se nte nc ing of

the ins tant o ff

en ce of5

co nvi ct ion , and ( B) the obs tr uc tiv e co nduc t r el at ed

to (i ) the defendant’ s offense of conviction and anyrelevant conduct; or (ii) a closely relate d offense. U.S.S.G. § 3 C1 .1. Am on g t he sev eral ex am pl es of c on du ctm ak in g a§ 3 C1 .1 enhancem ent appropriate is com m itting perj ury . Id., com m ent. ( n.4(b)). In ad dit ion , the e nhanc em en t i s no t i nte nde d to appl y to a de fe ndant’ s de nia l of gui lt, unl es s it is a de nia l of

gui lt unde r oath that c onst itute s pe rj ur y . I d. , c om

m en t. (n .2). Im po rta nt ly, th e ri gh t t o t es ti fy do es no t i nc lu de a ri gh t t o c omm itpe rjury. U nit ed S tate s v. D unni gan, 507 U
. S. 87, 96, 113 S
. Ct
. 111 1, 111 7, 122 L
. E d. 2d 44 5 (1 99 3)
. The S uprem e Court has held that “ if a def endant objects to a sentence
enhanc em en t r es ult ing f

ro m he r tr ia l t es tim ony , adis tr ic t c ourt m ust r ev ie wthe
ev ide nc e an d m ak e ind ep en de nt f ind ing s ne ce ssary

to es ta bli sh a w ill fu l im pedim ent to or obst ruction of justice. ” D unni gan, 507 U. S. at 95. T o m ake a finding of perj ury , the district court m ust conclud e that (1) the testim ony wa s giv enund er

oath; ( 2) the te sti m ony

w as f al se ; ( 3) the te sti m ony

w as m at er ia l; an d (4 ) the te sti m ony

w as giv enw ithw ill fu l i nte nt t o pr ovi de f al se te sti m ony

and n ot
as ar es ult of m ist ak e, c onf

usi on, or f au lty m em or y . Unit ed S tate s v. S ing h, 291 F. 3d 75 6, 763 n.4 (11th Cir. 2002). Although “ it is prefera ble for a district court to address each elem ent of the alleged perj ury in a separate and clear

finding,” a6

dis tr ic t c ourt’ s de ci sio n is suf fi ci en t i f the “ co urt m ak es af ind ing of an ob str uc tio n of, or im pedim ent to, j ustice that encom passes all of the factual pre dicates for a fin di ng of p erju ry .” Dun ni ga n, 5 07 U.S. at 9 5, 1 13 S.Ct . at 1 11 7. He re, Tinoco-Manzanares’ s constitution al right to testify wa s not im

ping ed by the im posi tio n of

the obs tr uc tio n of j ust ic e enhanc em en t be ca use the r igh t t o testify does not in clude a right to comm it perj ury , and the dis trict court m ade a fin di ng th aten co m

pa ss edall of t he factua l p red ic at es forpe rjury. 3. F ac tua l F ind ing s W e re view a constitu tional challenge to a sentence de novo
. United States v. Ch au , 42 6 F .3d13 18 , 13 21 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ). T ino co -M an zanare s’ s arg um en t i s w ith out m er it. W e have r ep eate dly he ld that, af ter Booker, “ the use of extra-ver dict enhancem ents in an advis ory guid elines sy stem

is not un constitu tional.” Chau, 426 F.3d at 1323. The court
m ay , by apr ep onde ranc e of

the e vid en ce , use j udge -f ound f ac ts i n f orm ulatin g a se nt en ce, as lo ng as i t p ro pe rly app li es advi so ry gu id el in es . See i d. at13 24
. AFFIRMED.