FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEV EN T HC IRC U IT MAY 11, 2007 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 06- 13564 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D o c k e tN o . 0 5 - 1 0 0 1 5 - C R - K MM U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f - A p p e lle e , v ersu s B U R T R A M J O H N S O N , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe S outhe rn D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( M ay 11, 2007) B efo re D U B IN A , C A RN E S an d H U L L , C i rcu i tJu d g es. H U L L , C i rc ui tJudg e: A f te raju ry tr ia l, B u r tr a m J o h n s o n ap p e a ls h is c o n v ic tio n s a n d 2 4 - m o n th2

s e nt e nc e f

orobs truc t i on of

j us t i c e , m a ki ng f

a l s e s t a t e m e nt s t o agr a nd j ury , a nd m a ki ng f a l s e s t a t e m e nt s t o the U ni t e d S t a t e s . A f t e rr e vi e w , w e c onc l ude tha tthe e v id e n c e a t tr ia l w a s s u f f ic ie n t to s u s ta in J o h n s o n ’s c o n v ic tio n s o n a ll c o u n ts . W e al so concl ud e thatthe di stri ctcourt , i n cal cul at i ng D ef endantJohn son’ s a dv i sory g u i d e l i n e s r a n g e , d i d n o te rri n i m p o s i n g a3 - l e v e l i n c r e a s e u n d e rU. S . S . G. § 2 J1. 3(b)(2) on the basi s thatJohn son’ s per j ury r es ul t ed i n sub st ant i al i nt er fe re nce w ith th e a d m in is tr a tio n o f ju s tic e . I . B AC KG RO UN D T hi s c a s e a r i s e s outof

f a l s e s t a t e m e nt s m a de by D e f e nda ntJ ohns on dur i ng the course of an i nv es t i gat i on of Je ff re y B al ch for vi ol at i on s of the C l ea n W at er A ct . B ec ause John son rai se s s uffi ci encyof the evi dence i ss ues, w e f i rs tsum m ar i ze th e e v id e n c e a t tr ia l. A . B al ch ’s Il l egal F i l lA ct i vi ty In 19 90 , B al ch pu rc hase d som e property i n M ar atho n, F l ori da, w hi ch w as l o c a t e d o n th e Gu l f

o f Me x i c o i n a n a r e ak n o wn a s F l o r i d aB a y a n d i n c l u d e d two a c r e s of “ ba y bott om ” l a nd. B a l c h de c i de d t o de ve l op ac om m e r c i a l doc k on the pr ope r ty . I n 1994, B a l c h appl i e d f oraj oi ntpe rm i tf

r om the F l or i daD e pa r tm e ntof E nvi r onm e nt a l R e gul a t i on ( “ D E R ” ) a nd the U ni t e d S t a t e s A rm y C orps of E ngi ne e r s ( “ U S A C E ” ) t o bui l d the doc k. B a l c h obt a i ne d ape rm i tf r om theThe USACE per mit did notcontemplate that Balch’s proje ct would re quire dre dg ing a nd 1 fi l l i n g. 3 USACE, b u th e h a d d i f f i c u l ty o b t a i n i n g th e r e q u i s i t e p e rmi t s f r o m th e s t a t e DER 1 a n d o th e rs ta te a n d lo c a l a u th o r itie s . B al ch ev en tu al l y h i red D efen d an tJo h n so n , w h o resi d ed i n C al i fo rn i a, as a c o n s u lta n t to h e lp w ith th e p e rm ittin g d if f ic u ltie s th a t B a lc h h a d b e e n h a v in g . A ft erD ef

endantJohn son h ad re vi ew ed B al ch’ s docum ent s, John son adv i se d B al ch thathe had b ee n app l yi ng t o the w rong agency , and that , because he ow ned the bay bo tt om , B al ch “ coul d d o w hat[he] w ant ed w i th i t . ” O n N ov em ber 13, 20 01 , B al ch ent er ed i nt o an agreement w i th F el i x E qu i t i es ( “F e lix ” ) , ac o n tr a c to rw h o h a d s u rp lu s d ir t, o rf ill, f r o m a n e x c a v a tio n p r o

je c t it w a s pe r f orm i ng i n M a r a thon, t o dum p i t s e xtr af i l l on B a l c h’ s pr ope r ty . A c c or di ng t o B a l c h, D e f

e nda ntJ ohns on w a s a w a r e of thi s a gr e e m e ntbe c a us e B a l c h a nd John son “ t al ked al l the t i m e. . . . som et i m es three or four t i m es a w ee k. ” O nce F e lix b e g a n d e liv e r in g th e f ill, B a lc h f

ir s t s p r e a d o u t th e f

ill a c r o s s h is p r o p e r ty in o r d e rto f ill in a n y h o le s a n d le v e l o u t a n y d ip s a n d b u m p s o n th e la n d . A r ound the e nd of

D e c e m be r2001, B a l c h be ga n pus hi ng the f i l l i nt o the w a t e ra nd ont o hi s ba y bott om . B a l c h di s c us s e d w i th D e f e nda ntJ ohns on the l e ga l i ty of

hi s a c t i ons , a nd J ohns on ha d a“ ve ry s tr ong opi ni on” tha tB a l c h ha d the r ig h t to d o w h a t h e w a n te d w ith h is b a y b o tto m . B a lc h c o n tin u e d p u s h in g f ill in toThis document w a s introd uc e d into evidenc eby

theg ov ernment at John so n’ s trial. 2 4 th e w a te rth r o u g h M a r c h 2 0 0 2 , d u r in g w h ic h tim e h e h a d r e g u la rc o n ta c t w ith J ohns on. O n F e brua ry 20, 2002, V i c t orA nde r s on, ar e gul a t ory f i e l d a ge ntw i th the U S A C E , ent er ed on t o B al ch’ s property i n o rdert o i nv es t i gat e a l l egat i on s of i l l egal f i l l i ng. A nde r s on m e tw i th B i l l R e a vi s , w ho w a s B a l c h’ s s i t e m a na ge ra nd pr e s e nt atthe t i m e. A nd er son t ol d R ea vi s thatthe fi l l i ng needed t o st op and thatB al ch n e e d e d to c a ll A n d e r s o n . B a lc h c a lle d A n d e r s o n la te rth a t d a y , a n d A n d e r s o n to ld B al ch thathe bel i eved i l l egal fi l l i ng w as go i ng on atthe prop erty a nd thati tneeded t o s t op. B a l c h t ol d A nde r s on t o c ont a c thi s c ons ul t a nt , J ohns on, a nd ga ve hi m the ph on e num ber. B al ch al so ca l l ed D ef endantJohn son t o t el l hi m w hathad happe ne d a nd t o gi ve hi m a“ he a ds - up” tha tA nde r s on m i ghtbe c a l l i ng, but A n d e r s o n n e v e rc o n ta c te d J o h n s o n . S hor t l y the r e a f

t e r , D e f e nda ntJ ohns on r e que s t e d tha tB a l c h c r e a t e adr a w i ng thatre pres ent ed hi s progres s a nd show ed the pl ac em entof the fi l l on the bay bott om a nd f

a x i tt o hi m . B a l c h c r e a t e d adr a w i ng of hi s pr ope r ty w i th m a rks i ndi c a t i ng w ha ta r e a s a l r e a dy ha d be e n f i l l e d a nd w ha ta r e a s w e r e s t i l l l e f tt o be f i l l e d. B a l c h the n f

a xe d thi s doc um e ntt o J ohns on on F e brua ry 28, 2002, f r om the f a x m a c h in e in B a lc h ’s o f f ic e . B a lc h s u b s e q u e n tly m a d e ac o u p le o f p h o n e c a lls 2On that same da y, March 5, 2002, Ander son issued a ce ase a nd desist order to B alch, 3 which wa s sent via certified mail. However, theorder was never retrieve d from B alch’ s mailbox and wa s later returne d. 5 t o ensure thatJohn son rec ei ved the fa x, and app roxi m at el y tw o o r three days l at er , di s c us s e d the dr a w i ngs w i th J ohns on “ i n qui t e abi tof de t a i l , ” a s w e l l a s hi s pl a ns f o rth e d o c k a n d f

o rab o a t lif

t o n th e p r o p e r ty . O n M a r c h 5, 2002, I ve tt e M c G r a w , w ho w orke d i n the e nf or c e m e ntdi vi s i on of the U S A C E , ca l l ed John son and t ol d h i m thatB al ch w as pu tt i ng un autho ri ze d fi l l i nt o the w at erand n ee ded t o st op . T he nextday, John son spo ke w i th M cG ra w 3 a n d in f o rm e d h e rth a t B a lc h h a d s to p p e d p u ttin g f ill in th e w a te r . A c c o r d in g to B a lc h , J o h n s o n to ld h im ab o u t th e c a ll f r o m M c G r a w , b u t J o h n s o n n e v e rto ld h im to s to p th e f

illin g o rth a t th e f

illin g w a s ille g a l. C o n s e q u e n tly , B a lc h c o n tin u e d to p u t f ill in th e w a te rb e c a u s e h is f ill p r o je c t h a d n o t y e t b e e n c o m p le te d . O n M a r c h 13, 2002, M c G r a w l e f tam e s s a ge f

orJ ohns on t e l l i ng hi m tha tthe un autho ri ze d fi l l had con t i nu ed and thatB al ch had t o st op i m m edi at el y. M cG ra w a ls o f a x e d ac o p y o f

ac e a s e a n d d e s is t o r d e rth a t h a d b e e n is s u e d f o rB a lc h . J ohns on c a l l e d B a l c h a nd t ol d hi m tha tM c G r a w s t i l l w a s c onc e rne d aboutthe una uthor i z e d f

i l l . J ohns on w a nt e d t o know w he r e B a l c h w a s on the pr oj e c t , a nd Ba l c h i n f o rme d h i m th a th e o n l y h a d ac o u p l e o f c e me n tb l o c k s t o p l a c e a n d s o me le v e lin g to f

in is h . B a lc h c o n tin u e d f illin g f o raf e w m o r e d a y s a f

te rta lk in g w ith6

Jo h n so n . M ean w h i l e, o n M arch 1 4 , 2 0 0 2 , A n d erso n retu rn ed t o th e p ro p erty, di sc ov er ed thatthe un autho ri ze d fi l l ac t i vi ty had cont i nu ed, and i ss ued ano ther ce as e a nd desi storder t o B al ch, w hi ch w as pers on al l y s erved o n B al ch on M ar ch 20, 2002. O n M a r c h 1 8 , 2 0 0 2 , O s w a l d o Ro me r o , J r . , as p e c i a l a g e n ti n th e U . S. E nvi r onm e nt a l P r ot e c t i on A ge nc y ( “ E P A ” ) , C r i m i na l I nve s t i ga t i on D i vi s i on, o p en ed an in v es ti g atio n in to th e u n au th o rize d fill ac ti v ity o cc u rr in g o n B alch ’s pr ope r ty . D ur i ng the c our s e of hi s i nve s t i ga t i on, A ge ntR om e r o c ont a c t e d J ohns on in an ef fo rt to g et “a firs th an d ac co u n t o f w h at h ad b ee n g o in g o n ” a t B alch ’s prop erty. H ow ever , John son t ol d A gentR om er o, am on g o ther thi ng s, thathe had notl e a rne d aboutthe una uthor i z e d f i l l i ng unt i l he w a s c ont a c t e d by M c G r a w on M ar ch 5, 20 02 , thathe i m m edi at el y c on t ac t ed B al ch and t ol d h i m t o st op , and that B al ch st op ped p ut t i ng fi l l i n the w at eraf t erJohn son t al ked w i th h i m . W hen asked w he the rhe ha d e ve rt ol d B a l c h tha the w a s e nt i t l e d t o f i l l i n hi s pr ope r ty , J ohns on s t a t e d tha the ha d notdone s o, a ga i n c l a i m i ng tha the di d notknow aboutthe f i l l i ng u n til h e w a s c o n ta c te d b y M c G r a w . B al ch subsequent l y w as i nd i ct ed for vi ol at i ng the C l ea n W at erA ct . B al ch e ve ntua l l y pl e d gui l ty . F ol l ow i ng hi s s e nt e nc i ng, B a l c h m e tw i th the gove rnm e nt a n d d is c u s s e d , in te ra lia , h is c o n v e r s a tio n s w ith J o h n s o n c o n c e rn in g th e f ill7

ac t i vi ty. In addi t i on , B al ch prov i ded p ho ne re cords t o the go vernm entw hi ch i ndi c a t e d tha tB a l c h ( 1) c a l l e d J ohns on tw i c e on F e brua ry 20, 2002, the da y of A nde r s on’ s i ns pe c t i on; ( 2) c a l l e d J ohns on onc e on F e brua ry 21, 2002, a nd onc e on F ebruary26 , 20 02 ; (3) s enta f ax t o Joh nson on F ebruary28 , 20 02 , and al so ca l l ed hi m tha tda y ; a nd ( 4) c a l l e d J ohns on tw i c e on M a r c h 1, 2002, t a l ki ng w i th hi m f or o v e rtw e n ty - s ix m in u te s to ta l. B . Jo h n son ’s G ran d Ju ry A p p earan ce s O n S e p te m b e r3 , 2 0 0 3 , D e f e n d a n t J o h n s o n w a s s e rv e d w ith as u b p o e n ato appe a rbe f

or e agr a nd j ury i nve s t i ga t i ng B a l c h’ s a l l e ge d i l l e ga l f i l l a c t i vi t i e s . T he subp oena al so com m anded Joh nson t o b ri ng w i th h i m al l re cords thathe had p e r ta in in g to B a lc h a n d th e p r o p e r ty in M a r a th o n in o r d e rto p r o v id e “a c o m p le te pi cture of e very thi ng thatw as go i ng on on the prop erty. ” S ho rt l y there af t er , D e f e nda ntJ ohns on c a l l e d A ge ntR om e r o, c om pl a i ni ng tha tthe s ubpoe naw a s t oo broad and thathe had “ tw o d ra w er s f ul l of re cords. ” A gentR om er o adv i se d D e f e nda ntJ ohns on t o box up the r e c or ds a nd s hi p the m a he a d of t i m e a tthe go vernm ent ’ s e xp ense . D uri ng the conv er sa t i on , A gentR om er o al so re vi ew ed w ith D e f e n d a n t J o h n s o n th e r e q u ir e m e n ts o f th e s u b p o e n aa n d in s tru c te d h im to b r in g a n y a n d a ll r e c o r d s h e h a d , a n d n o t ju s t th e r e c o r d s J o h n s o n d e e m e d r e le v a n t.John so n later c lari fi e d d uringhisse c on d a

pp e ara nc ebe fo rethegra

nd jur y that th ec all 4 from McGrawoccur

red on Ma

rch 5, 2002. 8 O n N ov em ber 12, 20 03 , D ef endantJohn son app ea re d b ef ore the grand j ury i n K e y W e s t , F l or i da . B e f or e hi s t e s t i m ony , J ohns on m e tw i th A ge ntR om e r o a nd the pr os e c ut ort o di s c us s w he the rhe ha d br oughthi s r e c or ds s i nc e he ha d nots e nt them ahea d o f t i m e. D ef endantJohn son p rodu ce d fou r m ani l l a f ol ders that c ont a i ne d the doc um e nt s he be l i e ve d w e r e r e l e va ntt o the i nve s t i ga t i on. A ge nt R om e r o a ga i n e xpl a i ne d t o J ohns on tha tthe s ubpoe nar e qui r e d the pr oduc t i on of a l l h i s r e c o r d s , a n d J o h n s o n wa s g i v e n at e n - d a y e x t e n s i o n t o p r o d u c e th e two boxe s of r e c or ds tha the ha d t ol d R om e r o about . J ohns on w a s i nf orm e d tha the w ou l d l i kel y have t o app ea r bef ore the grand j ury a gai n o nce hi s r ec ords w er e p r o d u c e d a n d r e v ie w e d . D ur i ng hi s f

i r s tappe a r a nc e be f

or e the gr a nd j ury on N ove m be r12, 2003, D e f e nda ntJ ohns on t e s t i f

i e d, i nt e ra l i a , tha t( 1) he r e c e i ve d ac a l l f r om M c G r a w on M a r c h 3, 2002, i n w hi c h s he s t a t e d tha tthe r e w a s i l l e ga l dum pi ng of f i l l i nt o the 4 w a t e ron B a l c h’ s pr ope r ty ; ( 2) pr i ort o be i ng c ont a c t e d by M c G r a w , he ha d “ no k n o w l ed g e w h at so ev er” th atfi l l w as b ei n g p l aced i n th e w at er o n B al ch ’ s p ro p erty; (3) he c on t ac t ed B al ch and t ol d h i m t o st op the du m pi ng ; and (4) he never advi se d B a lc h to p u t f

ill in th e w a te r . O n D e c e m b e r2 , 2 0 0 3 , A g e n t R o m e r o r e c e iv e d tw o b o x e s o f d o c u m e n ts9

f r om D e f e nda ntJ ohns on tha tc ont a i ne d, a m ong othe rthi ngs , ( 1) ac opy of the F e b ru a ry 2 8 , 2 0 0 2 f

a x f r o m B a lc h c o n ta in in g ad e s c r ip tio n o f th e a r e a s o f

h is pr ope r ty tha tw e r e a l r e a dy f i l l e d a nd thos e a r e a s tha ts t i l l ne e de d t o be f i l l e d; a nd ( 2) anot a t i on on al e ga l pa d, da t e d F e brua ry 6 a nd F e brua ry 8, 2002, w hi c h s t a t e d,

“ i l l egal dredge and fi l l . . . sovere i gn l and, bay bot t om i ss ue, Je ff –fel on y. ” W hen a s ke d aboutthe s e doc um e nt s , J ohns on s t a t e d tha the ha d ne ve rs e e n the f a x a nd w a s uns ur e w ha tthe not a t i ons m e a nt . J ohns on a l s o pr oduc e d, pr i ort o hi s s e c ond gr a nd j ury t e s t i m ony , af ol de rc ont a i ni ng not a t i ons f r om J ohns on’ s c onve r s a t i ons w ith M c G r a w . O n Jun e 16, 20 04 , D ef

endantJohn son app ea re d b ef ore the grand j ury f

or a se cond t i m e a nd agai n t es t i fi ed thathe had n otdi sc usse d the fi l l i ng of the bay b o tto m w ith B a lc h p r io rto h is c o n v e r s a tio n w ith M c G r a w o n M a r c h 5 , 2 0 0 2 . John son al so t es t i fi ed thathe had n ott al ked w i th B al ch abou tA nd er son’ s F ebruary 20, 2002 i nve s t i ga t i on of the pr ope r ty unt i l a f

t e rhi s c onve r s a t i on w i th M c G r a w on M a r c h 5, 2002. F i na l l y , J ohns on w a s a s ke d aboutthe F e brua ry 28, 2002 f a x f r om B a l c h tha tw a s r e c ove r e d f r om hi s f i l e s a nd t e s t i f

i e d tha the ha d no r e c ol l e c t i on of s e e in g th e f

a x o rd e a lin g w ith it. C . J o hns o n’ s C o nv i c t i o ns O n J une 15, 2005, af

e de r a l gr a nd j ury r e turne d af i ve - c ounti ndi c tm e nt10

c ha r gi ng J ohns on w i th ( 1) tw o c ount s of e nde a vor i ng t o obs truc tthe a dm i ni s tr a t i on of j ust i ce by kn ow i ng l y gi vi ng fa l se t es t i m on y bef ore agrand j ury on N ov em ber 1 2 , 2 0 0 3 ( Co u n tO n e ) a n d J u n e 1 6 , 2 0 0 4 ( Co u n tTw o ) , i n v i o l a t i o n o f 1 8 U . S. C. § 1 50 3; and (2) tw o cou nt s of kno w i ng l y m aki ng fa l se m at er i al decl ar at i on s bef ore agr a nd j ury on N ove m be r12, 2003 ( C ountT hr e e ) a nd J une 16, 2004 ( C ount F our ) , i n vi ol a t i on of

18 U . S . C . § 1623. T he pr i m a ry ba s i s f orC ount s O ne thr ough F o u rw a s J o h n s o n ’s te s tim o n y th a t h e d id n o t k n o w ab o u t B a lc h ’s ille g a l f ill ac t i vi ty pri or t o b ei ng cont ac t ed by M cG ra w on M ar ch 5, 20 02 . John son al so w as c ha r ge d w i th one c ountof m a ki ng af

a l s e s t a t e m e ntt o the U ni t e d S t a t e s ( C ount F i ve ) , i n vi ol a t i on of

18 U . S . C . § 1001, f

ors t a t i ng t o a ge nt s of

the U S A C E tha the w a s una w a r e of

B a l c h’ s i l l e ga l f

i l l a c t i vi ty pr i ort o be i ng c ont a c t e d by M c G r a w on M a r c h 5, 2002. J ohns on pr oc e e de d t o tr i a l . A tthe c l os e of the gove rnm e nt ’ s c a s e , J ohns on m ove d f oraj udgm e ntof

a c qui tt a l , a r gui ng tha tthe gove rnm e ntha d notpr ove n the re q u isit e e lem en ts o f in ten t an d m ater iali ty. T h e d istrict co u rt d en ied Jo h n so n ’s m o ti o n . A t th e c lo se o f J o h n so n ’s d ef en se , th e d istrict co u rt also d en ied Jo h n so n ’s r e n e w e d m o tio n f

o raju d g m e n t o f

a c q u itta l. T h e ju ry f

o u n d J o h n s o n g u ilty o n a ll ch arg es.The g overnment acknowle dg ed that it could not rely on the costs associated with the 5 pros e cuti on

of De fendant Johns on

or any inv e sti g ativ ee xpens e s in cur re d b e fo reJohn so n’ s f

alse t e s ti m o ny b e f

o reth egran d

j ur y. 11 D . Se nt e nc i ng A p resen t en ce i n v est i g at i o n rep o rt(“ P S I”) reco m m en d ed a b ase o ffen se le v e l o f 1 4 , p u r s u a n t to U .S .S .G . § 2 J 1 .3 ( a ) , a n d a3 - le v e l in c r e a s e , p u r s u a n t to § 2 J 1 .3 ( b ) ( 2 ) , b e c a u s e J o h n s o n ’s p e r ju ry “r e s u lte d in s u b s ta n tia l in te r f e r e n c e w ith th e ad m i n i strat i o n o f j u st i ce. ” S ee U . S . S . G . § 2 J1 . 3 (b )(2 ). W i th a t o t al o ffen se l evel of 17 and a cri m i nal hi st ory c at egory of I , John son’ s a dv i sorygu i del i nes ran g e w as 2 4 t o 3 0 m o n th s. A tse nt enci ng , John son o bj ec t ed t o the 3-l evel enhancem entun der § 2J 1. 3( b) ( 2) , a r gui ng, i nt e ra l i a , tha tthe r e w a s no e vi de nc e tha thi s t e s t i m ony be f or e the gr a nd j ury r e s ul t e d i n the s ubs t a nt i a l e xpe ndi tur e of gove rnm e nt r e s o u r c e s . I n r e s p o n s e , th e g o v e rn m e n t a r g u e d th a t J o h n s o n ’s p e r ju ry d id r e s u lt in the s ubs t a nt i a l e xpe ndi tur e of gove rnm e ntr e s our c e s , i nc l udi ng: ( 1) the c os tof c onve ni ng the gr a nd j ury as e c ond t i m e ; ( 2) tr a ve l c os t s i nvol ve d i n br i ngi ng e ve ry body – J ohns on, m e m be r s of the gr a nd j ury , a nd pr os e c ut or s – ba c k as e c ond tim e ; a n d ( 3 ) in te rv ie w in g a n d s u b p o e n a in g o th e rw itn e s s e s , in p r e p a r a tio n f o rb o th the gr a nd j ury a nd f

ortr i a l , i n or de rt o e s t abl i s h s om e of the f a c t s tha tJ ohns on w o u l d h av e est ab l i sh ed h ad h e t est i fi ed tru th fu l l y. 512

T h e d istrict co u rt o v er ru led Jo h n so n ’s o b jectio n , fin d in g th at Jo h n so n ’s

“ m at er i al l y f

al se st at em ent s” t o the grand j ury, and h i s “ shenani gans” w i th res pect to th e p ro d u ctio n o f h is re co rd s, su b stan ti ally in terf er ed w ith th e g o v er n m en t’ s abi l i ty t o i nv es t i gat e the ca se , “ m ade w hatcoul d h ave a nd shou l d h ave been a very s tr a i ght f orw a r d c a s e m or e di f

f i c ul tt o pur s ue a nd i nve s t i ga t e , a nd f rus tr a t e d the due adm i ni stra t i on of j ust i ce . . . . ” J o h n s o n a l s o f

i l e d am o t i o n f

o rad o wn wa r d d e p a r tu r e , p u r s u a n tt o U. S . S . G. § § 5 K 2 . 0 an d 5 K 2 . 2 0 , b ased u p o n Jo h n so n ’ s o l d ag e, h i s p o o r h eal th , an d b ecau se hi s c onduc tc ons t i tut e d abe rr a ntbe ha vi or . T he di s tr i c tc our tde ni e d the m ot i on, f i ndi ng une qui voc a l l y tha ti tha d the di s c r e t i on t o de pa r tba s e d on thos e f a c t or s , but concl ud i ng thata departure w as no tapprop ri at e bec ause John son’ s c hara ct er i st i cs w er e not“ ou t si de the heart l and o f c as es . ” F i n al l y, Jo h n so n arg u ed th ata sen t en ce o f p ro b at i o n w i th 6 m o n th s o f h o u se a rr e s tw o u l d b e r e a s o n ab l e a n d s u f f i c i e n tt o me e tth e p u rp o s e s o f 1 8 U . S. C. § 3 55 3(a) , gi ven the fa ct ors c i t ed i n h i s m ot i on for dow nw ar d d eparture, the nature o f th e o ff

en se , an d h is lack o f a n y c rim in al h isto ry . A fterco n sid er in g Jo h n so n ’s a r gum e nt s a nd the f

a c t or s i n § 3553( a ) , i nc l udi ng the na tur e a nd c i r c um s t a nc e s of the of f e ns e , the hi s t ory a nd c ha r a c t e r i s t i c s of the de f e nda nt , a nd the ne e d f

orthe s e nt e nc e t o r e f

l e c tthe s e r i ous ne s s of

the of f e ns e a nd pr ovi de j us tpuni s hm e nt , theWe re view deno vothedis tric t c ourt ’sdenial of a motion fo r j udgment o f ac quitt al, 6 viewingthe facts and dra wingall inferences in the light most favorableto the g overnment. Unite d St ate s v . D e sc ent, 29 2 F .3 d 7 03 , 7 06 (1 1th Cir . 2 00 2) . In o rder to a ff ir m, “wene e d o nly deter mine that a re asonablefac t-finder could conc lude that the evidence e stablished the defendant’s guilt beyond a re asonabledoubt.” I d. (quotation marks omitted). 13 di stri ctcourtconcl ud ed thata s ent ence w i thi n the advi sorygu i del i nes r ange w as r e a s onabl e a nd s e nt e nc e d J ohns on t o at ot a l of 24 m onths ’ i m pr i s onm e nta nd 2 yea rs ’ supervi se d rel ea se . John son n ow appeal s hi s c on vi ct i on s a nd se nt ence . I I . DI S CUS S I ON A . S u ff

i ci en cy of th e E vi d en ce O n ap p e a l, D e f

e n d a n t J o h n s o n a r g u e s th a t th e r e w a s in s u f f ic ie n t e v id e n c e to s uppor thi s c onvi c t i ons be c a us e hi s f a l s e s t a t e m e nt s r e ga r di ng the da t e on w hi c h he l e a rne d of

B a l c h’ s i l l e ga l f

i l l a c t i vi ty , e s pe c i a l l y i n l i ghtof hi s othe r , truthf

ul s t a t e m e nt s i m pl i c a t i ng B a l c h, w e r e notm a t e r i a l t o a ny i nve s t i ga t i on a nd di d not ha ve the na tur a l a nd pr obabl e e f f e c tof i m pe di ng j us t i c e . A c c or di ngl y , J ohns on ar gu es thatthe di stri ctcourterre d i n d enyi ng hi s m ot i on for j ud gm entof ac qu i tt al as t o al l co u n t s. 6 I n or de rt o c onvi c tade f e nda ntf orobs truc t i on of

j us t i c e unde rthe om ni bus c l a us e of 18 U . S . C . § 1503, “ the gove rnm e ntm us tpr ove tha the ( 1) c orrupt l y orby thr e a t s , ( 2) e nde a vor e d, ( 3) t o i nf l ue nc e , obs truc t , ori m pe de the due a dm i ni s tr a t i on14

o f j u st i ce. ” U n i t ed S t at es v . T h o m as, 9 1 6 F . 2 d 6 4 7 , 6 5 1 (1 1 th C i r. 1 9 9 0 ). F al se t e s t i m ony c a n pr ovi de the ba s i s f orac onvi c t i on unde r§ 1503 s o l ong a s i tha d the

“ natural and p robabl e e ff ec t ” of i nt er fe ri ng w i th the adm i ni stra t i on of j ust i ce , even tho ug h the defendant ’ s c on du ctm ayno thave actual l y obstruct ed j ust i ce . Id. at 6 5 1 - 5 2 . L i ke w i s e , ac onvi c t i on f orm a ki ng f

a l s e de c l a r a t i ons be f

or e agr a nd j ury , 18 U .S .C . § 1 6 2 3 , o rto th e U n ite d S ta te s , 1 8 U .S .C . § 1 0 0 1 , r e q u ir e s , in r e le v a n t p a r t, thatthe fa l se st at em entbe m at er i al . A fa l se st at em enti s m at er i al “ i f i thas anatural t e nde nc y t o i nf

l ue nc e , orw a s c apabl e of i nf l ue nc i ng, the de c i s i on of the de c i s i onm a ki ng body t o w hi c h i tw a s a ddr e s s e d. ” K ungy s v. U ni t e d S t a t e s , 485 U .S . 7 5 9 , 7 7 0 , 1 0 8 S . C t. 1 5 3 7 , 1 5 4 6 ( 1 9 8 8 ) ( q u o ta tio n m a rk s o m itte d ) . H e r e , J ohns on r e pe a t e dl y m a de f a l s e s t a t e m e nt s w hi l e t e s t i f y i ng be f or e the gr a nd j ury a nd w hi l e t a l ki ng t o A ge ntR om e r o c onc e rni ng the i m por t a nti s s ue of w h e n J o h n s o n f

ir s t k n e w ab o u t B a lc h ’s ille g a l f ill a c tiv ity . F ir s t, J o h n s o n to ld A gentR om er o, du ri ng the i ni t i al i nv es t i gat i on i nt o B al ch’ s vi ol at i on of the C l ea n W a t e rA c t , tha the di d notknow abouta ny una uthor i z e d f i l l a c t i vi ty oc c urr i ng on B a lc h ’s p r o p e r ty u n til a f te rh e w a s c o n ta c te d b y M c G r a w o n M a r c h 5 , 2 0 0 2 . T h is fal se st at em en tp ro v i d ed th e b asi s fo r Jo h n so n ’ s co n v i ct i o n fo r m ak i n g fal se s ta te m e n ts to th e U n ite d S ta te s ( C o u n t F iv e ) .15

John son then m ade s i m i l arfa l se st at em ent s c on ce rni ng w hen h e f i rs tl ea rned of the i l l e ga l f

i l l a c t i vi ty on B a l c h’ s pr ope r ty dur i ng hi s t e s t i m ony be f or e the gr a nd j ury on N ove m be r12, 2003, a nd J une 16, 2004. T hos e f a l s e s t a t e m e nt s be f

or e the g r a n d ju ry p r o v id e d th e b a s e s f o rJ o h n s o n ’s c o n v ic tio n s f o re n d e a v o r in g to o b s tru c t th e a d m in is tr a tio n o f ju s tic e ( C o u n ts O n e a n d T w o ) , a n d f o rk n o w in g ly m aki ng fa l se decl ar at i on s bef ore agrand j ury ( C ou nt s T hree and F ou r) . T here w as a m pl e e vi de nc e tha tthe s e s t a t e m e nt s w e r e know i ngl y f a l s e w he n m a de , i nc l udi ng: ( 1) B a l c h’ s tr i a l t e s t i m ony r e ga r di ng hi s c om m uni c a t i ons w i th J ohns on, a nd ( 2) doc um e nt a ry e vi de nc e , s uc h a s the F e brua ry 28, 2002 f a x f r om B a l c h, in d ic a tin g th a t J o h n s o n k n e w o f B a lc h ’s ille g a l f

ill a c tiv ity b e f

o r e M a r c h 5 , 2 0 0 2 . In d eed , o n ap p eal , Jo h n so n d o es n o tseri o u sl y co n t estth ath e m ad e fal se s ta te m e n ts . I n s te a d , J o h n s o n a r g u e s th a t th e s ta te m e n ts w e r e n o t m a te r ia l. Af t e rath o r o u g h r e v i e w o f th e tr i a l tr a n s c r i p ta n d th e p a r t i e s ’ b r i e f s , we c o n c lu d e th a t th e e v id e n c e p r e s e n te d a t tr ia l w a s m o r e th a n s u f f ic ie n t f o rth e ju ry to c onc l ude , be y ond ar e a s onabl e doubt , tha tJ ohns on’ s f a l s e s t a t e m e nt s t o the gr a nd j ury a nd t o A ge ntR om e r o w e r e m a t e r i a l a nd ha d the na tur a l a nd pr obabl e e f f e c tof in te r f e r in g w ith th e a d m in is tr a tio n o f ju s tic e . B y f a ls e ly c la im in g to h a v e n o t k n o w n ab o u t B a lc h ’s ille g a l f ill a c tiv ity u n til a f t e rhe w a s c ont a c t e d by M c G r a w on M a r c h 5, 2002, J ohns on di s rupt e d a nd16

in te r f e r e d w ith th e in v e s tig a tio n in to B a lc h ’s v io la tio n s o f th e C le a n W a te rA c t. S pe c i f i c a l l y , J ohns on’ s f

a l s e s t a t e m e nt s de ni e d both A ge ntR om e r o a nd the gr a nd j ury a c c e s s t o aw i tne s s – i . e . J ohns on – w ho ha d de t a i l e d, f i r s tha nd know l e dge of B a l c h’ s pr e - M a r c h 2002 a c t i vi t i e s , i nc l udi ng B a l c h’ s pr e pa r a t i ons , pl a ns , a nd r a t i ona l e f

orhi s f i l l i ng pr oj e c t . J ohns on’ s l i e s de ni e d A ge ntR om e r o a nd the gr a nd j ury a cc es s t o thi s i nform at i on and forecl osed further i nq ui ryi nt o B al ch’ s i l l egal a c t i vi t i e s . M or e ove r , J ohns on’ s f a l s e s t a t e m e nt s de pr i ve d A ge ntR om e r o a nd the g ra n d ju ry o f a co m p lete p ictu re o f B alch ’s il leg al fill ac ti v ity, in clu d in g B alch ’s k n o w l ed g e o r b el i ef as t o th e l eg al i ty o f h i s act i o n s. A s a resu l t , Jo h n so n ’ s fal se st at em ent s w er e m at er i al t o the i ss ue of B al ch’ s kno w l edge and i nt ent , and w er e c ap ab le o f

in f lu e n c in g th e d e c is io n o f w h e th e rth e g o v e rn m e n t s h o u ld p u r s u e c iv il, a s oppos e d t o c r i m i na l , s a nc t i ons a ga i ns tB a l c h. John son em ph as i ze s the fa ctthatthe go vernm entw as st i l l abl e t o o bt ai n an i ndi c tm e ntof

B a l c h a nd c onvi c tB a l c h. T hi s r e s ul t , how e ve r , doe s notc ha nge the f a c ttha tJ ohns on m a de m a t e r i a l l y f a l s e s t a t e m e nt s tha tw e r e c apabl e of i nt e r f e r i ng w i th the a dm i ni s tr a t i on of j us t i c e a nd ha d ana tur a l t e nde nc y t o i nf l ue nc e the go vernm enti n i t s dec i si on m aki ng proces s. T hu s, the evi dence w as suff i ci entfor a r e a s o n ab le f

a c t- f in d e rto f in d J o h n s o n g u ilty b e y o n d ar e a s o n ab le d o u b t o n a llJ ohnson also argues that the district cour t errone ously

responde d to a question about 7 obstruction of justice posed by the jury duringdeliberations. W e conc lude, without further discussion, that this i ssue lacks merit as the district cour t merely ref erred the jury

to its original instruction, which containe d a cor rec t statement of the law

on the re quirements for

a convic tion for obstruc tion of justice. The district cour

t’s fac tual deter

mination that J ohnson’s perjur y resulted in substantial 8 interferenc e with the administration of justice by causingthe unnec essar

y expenditure of substantial governmental or c ourt resources must be accepted unless clea rly erroneous. See United States v. Jordi, 418 F.3d 1212, 1214 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 812 (2005); see also United States v. Serafini, 233 F .3d 758, 771 (3d Cir. 2000); United States v. Sinclair, 109 F.3d 1527, 1539 ( 10th Cir. 1997). 17 co u n t s, an d w e affi rm h i s co n v i ct i o n s. 7 B . S u b st an ti al In te rf er en ce w i th th e A d m i n i st rati on of Ju st i ce John son n extar gu es thatthe di stri ctcourterre d b y i m po si ng a 3-l evel i ncre as e t o h i s off

ense l evel , pu rs uantt o U . S . S . G . § 2 J1. 3(b)(2), af t erfi nd i ng that J ohns on’ s “ pe r

j ury . . . r e s ul t e d i n s ubs t a nt i a l i nt e r f e r e nc e w i th the a dm i ni s tr a t i on of j ust i ce . ” U . S . S . G . § 2 J1. 3(b)(2). T he com m ent ary t o § 2J1. 3 p rovi des that

“ [ s ] ubs t a nt i a l i nt e r f

e r e nc e w i th the a dm i ni s tr a t i on of j us t i c e ” i nc l ude s c a us i ng “ the u n n e c e s s a ry e x p e n d i tu r e o f s u b s t a n t i a l g o v e rn m e n t a l o rc o u r tr e s o u r c e s . ” U. S . S . G. § 2J 1. 3 c m t . n. 1. H e r e , J ohns on c ont e nds tha thi s pe r j ury di d notr e s ul ti n the u n n ecessary ex p en d i tu re o f su b st an t i al g o v ern m en t al o r co u rtreso u rces. 8 A l tho ug h w e have notprevi ou sl y def i ned w hatconst i tut es the un nece ss ary e xpe ndi tur e of

s ubs t a nt i a l gove rnm e nt a l orc our tr e s our c e s f orpurpos e s of ap p ly in g § 2 J 1 .3 ( b ) ( 2 ) , th e g o v e rn m e n t c o rr e c tly r e c o g n iz e d a t s e n te n c in g th a t it co u l d n o trel y o n an y i n v est i g at i v e co st s i n cu rred p ri o r t o Jo h n so n ’ s fal se18

t e s t i m ony , s e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. L e e pe r , 886 F . 2d 293, 295 ( 11th C i r . 1989) , orthe expenses as soci at ed w i th p rose cut i ng John son’ s und er l yi ng perj ury off ense , se e U n ite d S ta te s v . N o rr is , 2 1 7 F .3 d 2 6 2 , 2 7 3 ( 5 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ) ( c o lle c tin g c a s e s ) . M o r e o v e r , w e a g r e e th a t “[ t]h e g o v e rn m e n t n e e d n o t p a r tic u la r iz e as p e c if ic num be rof

hour s e xpe nde d by gove rnm e nte m pl oy e e s t o s us t a i n the appl i c a t i on of s e c t i on 2J 1. 3( b) ( 2) ’ s e nha nc e m e nt . ” N orr i s , 217 F . 3d a t273 ( quot a t i on m a rks om i tt ed). I n thi s c a s e , the gove rnm e ntpr ope r l y f oc us e d on e xpe ns e s i nc urr e d dur i ng the i nv es t i gat i on of B al ch for vi ol at i ng the C l ea n W at erA ctthatoccurre d aft er , and as are sul tof, John son’ s f al se t es t i m on y bef

ore the grand j ury. T he re cord in d ic a te s th a t th e g o v e rn m e n t e x p e c te d J o h n s o n to b e ab le to p r o v id e ac o m p le te ac co u n t o f B alch ’s il leg al fill ac ti v ity b ec au se o f h is u n iq u e p o siti o n as B alch ’s consul t antthrou gh ou tthe do ck proj ec t . H ow ever , because J oh nson t es t i fi ed fal sel y b efo re th e g ran d j u ry ab o u th i s k n o w l ed g e o f th e i l l eg al fi l l act i v i ty – t es t i m on y thatw as fa ci l i t at ed by hi s f ai l ure t o p rodu ce al l of hi s s ub po enae d r e c o r d s –th e g o v e rn m e n t w a s r e q u ir e d to c o n d u c t f u r th e rin v e s tig a tio n in to B al ch’ s c on du ct . T hu s, the go vernm entw as re qu i re d t o exp end add i t i on al re source s i n o rdert o i dent i fyand i nt ervi ew se vera l other w i tness es , such as truck d r iv e r s a n d n e ig h b o r s , w h o c o u ld te s tif y a s to th e tim in g o f

B a lc h ’s c o n d u c t.In light of theabove, w e also re ject Johnson’s contention that the district court imposed 9 the 3-leve l increa se under § 2J 1.3(b)( 2) primarily

based upon its displeasurewith the arrog ance J ohnson displayed toward the g overnment ag ents involved in the investigation of Balch. J ohnson also argues that the district cour t erre d in denying his U.S.S.G. §§ 5K2.0 and 10 5K2. 20 motion

fo r a do wnwa rd depa rt ure . H ow e ver, be c a

us ethedis tric t c ourt

c le arly re c ognize d th at it

had th edis c retio na

ry a uth ority to depa rt , w elac k ju

ri sdic tio n toreview its ref usal to do so. See United States v. Dudley, 463 F.3d 1221, 1228 ( 11th Cir. 2006). 19 F o l l o w i n g th i s ad d i t i o n al i n v est i g at i o n , as w el l as a rev i ew o f Jo h n so n ’ s reco rd s, the go vernm entthen reconvened the grand j ury. A s are sul t , the go vernm entw as req u i red t o ag ai n p ay fo r trav el ex p en ses fo r m em b ers o f th e g ran d j u ry, p r o s e c u to r s , a n d w itn e s s e s . G iv en th e r ec o rd in th is ca se , w e c an n o t say th at th e d istrict co u rt’s de t e rm i na t i on tha tJ ohns on’ s pe r j ury r e s ul t e d i n the unne c e s s a ry e xpe ndi tur e of s u b s t a n t i a l g o v e rn m e n t a l r e s o u r c e s wa s c l e a r l y e rr o n e o u s . Ac c o r d i n g l y , we 9 af fi rm the appl i ca t i on of the 3-l evel enhancem entpu rs uantt o § 2J1. 3(b)(2). C . R eason ab l en es s of Joh n son ’s S en te n ce F i nal l y, John son argues thathi s 24-m on th sent ence i s unrea sonabl e. A ft er 10 U n ite d S ta te s v . B o o k e r , 5 4 3 U .S . 2 2 0 , 1 2 5 S . C t. 7 3 8 ( 2 0 0 5 ) , ad is tr ic t c o u r t, in det erm i ni ng a r ea sonabl e s ent ence , m ustconsi der the corre ct l y c al cul at ed advi sory g u i d el i n es ran g e an d th e 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 5 5 3 (a) factors. S ee U n i t ed S t at es v . T al l ey, 43 1 F . 3d 78 4, 78 6 (11 th C i r. 20 05 ). W e r evi ew the defendant ’ s ul t i m at e s ent ence f orr e a s onabl e ne s s i n l i ghtof the § 3553( a ) f

a c t or s . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. W i l l i a m s , 43520

F .3 d 1 3 5 0 , 1 3 5 3 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) . T h is “[ r ]e v ie w f o rr e a s o n ab le n e s s is defe re nt i al . . . . and w hen the di stri ctcourti m po se s ase nt ence w i thi n the advi sory G ui del i nes r ange, w e ordi nari l y w i l l expectthatchoi ce t o b e are as on abl e one. ” T a l l e y , 431 F . 3d a t788. “ [ T ] he pa r ty w ho c ha l l e nge s the s e nt e nc e be a r s the bu rden of es t abl i shi ng thatthe se nt ence i s unrea sonabl e i n the l i gh tof bo th [the] r e c o r d a n d th e f

a c to r s in s e c tio n 3 5 5 3 ( a ) .” I d . A f te rr e v ie w , w e c o n c lu d e th a t J o h n s o n h a s n o t s h o w n th a t h is 2 4 - m o n th s e n te n c e is u n r e a s o n ab le . A s d is c u s s e d ab o v e , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t c o rr e c tly ca l cul at ed John son’ s a dv i sorygu i del i nes r ange. T he di stri ctcourtal so i nd i ca t ed tha ti tha d c ons i de r e d s e ve r a l of the § 3553( a ) f

a c t or s , i nc l udi ng the na tur e a nd c i r c um s t a nc e s of

the of f e ns e , the hi s t ory a nd c ha r a c t e r i s t i c s of the de f e nda nt , a nd the ne e d f

orthe s e nt e nc e t o r e f

l e c tthe s e r i ous ne s s of

the of f e ns e . I n doi ng s o, the di s tr i c tc our ta c know l e dge d J ohns on’ s a r gum e nt s f oras e nt e nc e be l ow the a dvi s ory gui de l i ne s r a nge , i nc l udi ng c onc e rns aboutJ ohns on’ s a ge a nd he a l th, but c o n c lu d e d th a t as e n te n c e w ith in th e a d v is o ry g u id e lin e s r a n g e w a s r e a s o n ab le . U nde rthe f

a c t s a nd c i r c um s t a nc e s of thi s c a s e , w e c a nnots a y tha tJ ohns on’ s 24- m o n th s e n te n c e , w h ic h is a t th e lo w e n d o f th e a d v is o ry g u id e lin e s r a n g e , is un re as on abl e. AF F I RME D.