FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T NOVEMB ER 2, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO N OT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 10 62 1 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 1 :0 8- cr-0 04 78 -J OF-GGB-1

UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, vers us ORLANDO KING, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e North ernDis tri ctof Ge or gi a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (No ve m be r 2, 2 01 1) Befo re BARKETT, MARCUS , andFAY, Circ ui t J ud ge s. PER CURI AM:Orla nd o Ki ng ap pe al s h is co nv ic ti on s an d s en te nc es forco ns pi racy to

co m m itba nkfrau d, i n v io la ti on of 1 8 U.S.C. § 13 49 , andag gr av at edid en ti ty the ft, in vi ol at io n o f 18 U.S.C. § 1 02 8A. Onap pe al , he r ai se s fo urch al le ng es to hi s co nv ic ti on s: (1) th e d is tri ctco urt ab us edit s d is cret io n wh enitde ni edhi s m ot io n to withd raw h is gu il ty ple a; (2) th ere was anin su ffi ci en t fa ctua l b as is as t o h is ag gr av at edid en ti ty the ft c on vi ct io n; (3) th e co urt i m pr op erl y de ni edhi s m ot io n fo r a co nt in ua nc e; an d (4 ) hi s ri gh t t o asp eedy tri al was v io la te d. Ki ng als o ra is es fo urch al le ng es to hi s s en te nc es : (1 ) th e co urt’s l os s ca lc ul at io n was cle arl y erro ne ou s; (2) th e co urt cl earl y erre d i n app lying a two -le ve l s op hi st ic at edm ean s se nt en ci ng en ha nc em en t u nd er U.S.S.G. § 2 B1 .1(b )(9 ); ( 3) th e co urt cl earl y erre d in ap pl y in g afou r-l ev el rol e en ha nc em en t u nd er U.S.S.G. § 3 B1 .1; an d (4 ) th e co urt cl earl y

erre d i n app lying a two -le ve l o bs tru ct io n o f jus ti ce en ha nc em en t un de r U.S.S.G. § 3 C1 .1. Fo r th e rea so ns setforth be lo w, we affi rm Kin g’s co nv ic ti on s an d s en te nc es . I. Kin g a ndhi s co de fen da nt , Haro ldW ard law, op en edbu si ne ss ch eck in g acco un ts at anu m

be r of ba nk s an d d ep os it edst ol ench eck s i nt o t he acco un ts . Afte r ob ta in in g ast ol ench eck , th ey wou ldin co rp or at e a b us in es s i n t he na m e o f th e ch eck ’s payee with t he Geor gi a Sec ret ary of Sta te an d u se th e p ap erwo rkfro m 2th e Sec ret ary of Sta te to op ena bu si ne ss ch eck in g a cco un t i n the pa y ee’s n am e. The y an d the ir c o- co ns pi rat or s wo ul d t he n d ep os itth e st ol ench eckin to th e ne wly-op en edbankacco un t, wi th dr aw m on ey , andm ak e wir e tr an sf ers fro m th e acco un ts . Kin g a ndW ard la w’ s ag reem en t as to th e p ro ceed s was th atW ard la w earn ed5% fo r op en in g t he ba nkacco un ts an d d ep os it in g t he st ol ench eck s. W ard la w recru it edco -co ns pi rat or s t o a ss is t h im in op en in g b an k a cco un ts , de po si ti ng ch eck s, an d wi th dr awin g fu nd s, an d t he se co -co ns pi rat or s turne d o ve r m os t o f th e m on ey

fro m th e acc ou nt s t o Ward la w. The t ot al in te nd edlo ss fro m th e st ol ench eck s, anun au th or iz edcred itli ne , un au th or iz edlo an s, an d t hr ee s to le n ch eck s t ha t h adno t yet be enne go ti at edwas $ 1,6 17 ,75 0.7 0. Th e actua l l os s was $9 19 ,43 6.2 6. Ina 21 -co un t s up ers ed in g i nd ic tm en t, Ki ng was c ha rg edwith, am on g o th er th in gs , con sp ira cy

to co m m itba nkfrau d, i n v io la ti on of 1 8 U.S.C. § 13 49 (Co un t 1) , andag gr av at edid en ti ty the ft, i n v io la ti on of 1 8 U.S.C. § 10 28 A (Co un t 1 4) . The di st ric t co urt al lo wedKin g t o re pr es en t h im se lf anddi rect edhi s at to rn ey to actas s tandby cou ns el . On th e fi rs t d ay of t ria l, Ki ng m ov edfor

a co nt in ua nc e to gi ve hi m m or e ti m e to pre pa re. He h adrece iv edwitne ss es ’ pr io r st at em en ts fro m th e g ov ern m en t the weekbe fo re an d aDVD of a wi tn es s i nt erv ie w th e d ay be fo re. He ha d a ls o h adtro ub le co m m un ic at in g wi th st an db y

co un se l fr om

pre tri al 3de te nt io n, an d h e h adno t re cei ve d a ll of t he ev id en ce tha t s ta ndby cou ns el ha d

se nthi m . The g ov ern m en t ag reedto m ak e co pi es of t he m is si ng ev id en ce fo r hi m . The co urt n on ethe le ss co nt inue d wi th th e tr ia l. Onth e se co ndda y of t ria l, Ki ng as ke d t ha t s ta ndby cou ns el be ap po in te d t o re pr es en t h im . The co urt g ran te d a on e-d ay co nt in ua nc e an d s ta te d tha t i t wo ul d a ll ow co un se l t o t ak e rec es se s th ro ug ho utth e tr ia l wh enis su es aro se th athe ha d n otha d t he ch an ce t o re vi ew. The ne xtda y , th e g ov ern m en t an d Ki ng in di cat edth atth ey ha d re ach eda pl ea ag reem en t, u nd er wh ic h Ki ng pl ead edgu il ty to Co un ts 1 an d 1 4. Th e go ve rn m en t ag reedth atth e U.S. Att orne y forth e North ernDis tri ctof Ge or gi a wou ldno t b rin g c riminal ch arg es ag ai ns t Ki ng ’s m othe r fo r he r in vo lv em en t i n fil in g l ie ns ag ai ns t the jud ge s, at to rn ey s, an d c as e ag en t i n t hi s ca se . At the pl ea co ll oquy, Kin g was pl acedun de r oa th , andhe tes ti fie d t ha t h e ha d h aden ou gh ti m e to di sc us s the ch arg es ag ai ns t h im with h is att orne y , was sa ti sf ie d wi th hi s at to rn ey ’s adv is e an d re pr es en ta ti on , andha d d is cu ss edth e p le a ag reem en t wi th hi s at to rn ey be fo re s ig ni ng it . Nob od y ha d fo rcedor t hr eat en ed Kin g t o g ethi m

to si gn th e p le a ag reem en t, an d n ob od y ha d m ad e an y

pro m is es to hi m th atwere n otco nt ai ne d i n t he pl ea ag reem en t. The go ve rn m en t ex pl ai ne d t he el em en ts of t he ch arg es in Co un ts 1 an d 1 4, an d Ki ng tes ti fie d t ha t h e h adno qu es ti on s ab ou t the ch arg es , andhe un de rs to odth athe was g iv in g up anu m be r of 4rig ht s b y

pl ead in g g ui lt y . Fin al ly, Kin g t es ti fie d tha t h e h adco m m it te d t he act s al le ge d i n C ou nt s 1 an d 1 4 o f th e in di ct m en t. The go ve rn m en t p res en te d i ts factua l b as is , andKin g a gr eedth at , if the cas e wen t t o t ria l, the go ve rn m en t wo ul d be ab le to pro ve th atfactua l b as is . After f in di ng th athe was p le ad in g g ui lt y kn owi ng ly andvo lu nt ari ly andth atth e p le a was supp orte d b y anin de pe nd en t factua l b as is , th e co urt ac cep te d Ki ng ’s gu il ty ple a. Kin g a ndhi s at to rn ey

bo th fil edm ot io ns to withdraw the gu il ty ple a, al le gi ng th atth e p le a was in vo lu nt ary be cau se Kin g was th reat en edan d u nd er du res s wh enhe pl ead edgu il ty. Ju dg e Ja ckCam p h el d a n ex p ar te he ari ng on th e m ot io n, atwhi ch Kin g s ta te d t ha t h is att orne y ha d t ol d h im

th atth e g ov ern m en t wou ldin di cthi s fa m il y

m em be rs if h e d idno t p le adgu il ty. His att orne y st at ed th athe ha d n ev er t ol d Ki ng th atif h e d idno t p le adgu il ty, hi s fa m il y m em be rs wou ldbe in di ct ed . Nor h adhe to ldKin g t ha t h e sh ou ldco ns id er the in ve st ig at io n of hi s fa m il y

m em be rs when de ci di ng whet he r to pl eadgu il ty. The g ov ern m en t fil eda res po ns e. Cam p d en ie d t he m ot io n, ex pl ai ni ng th atKin g h adtes ti fie d tha t h e un de rs to odth e ch arg es ag ai ns t h im , hadco m m it te d the act s ch arg edin th e in di ct m en t, h adno t b een for cedor t hr eat en edto pl eadgu il ty, an d was sat is fie d with h is att orne y ’s adv ic e an d re pr es en ta ti on . He hadno t s ho wn t ha t the se 5st at em en ts were fa ls e, an d t he refo re, Kin g h adpl ead edkn owi ng ly, vo lu nt ari ly,

an d wi th th e cl os e as si st an ce o f co un se l. Ad di ti on al ly, de nyin g t he m ot io n wo ul d co ns erv e jud ic ia l re so ur ces an d p rev en t the go ve rn m en t fr om be in g p reju di ced . Kin g fi le d am ot io n fo r rec on si de rat io n, af te r whi ch , hi s ca se was re as si gn ed to Ju dg e J. Owen Fo rres te r be cau se a fel on y cri m in al co m

pl ai ntha d b een fil ed ag ai ns t J ud ge Cam

p. J ud ge Fo rres te r de ni edth e m ot io n fo r rec on si de rat io n a fte r de no vo rev ie w. Inpre parin g the PSI, the pro ba ti on off ic er as si gn edKin g aba se off en se le ve l o f 7 f

orCo un t 1 , a 16 -le ve l en ha nc em en t u nd er U.S.S.G. § 2 B1 .1(b )(1 )(I) be cau se th e to ta l l os s was ov er $ 1 m il li on , a 2- le ve l en ha nc em en t u nd er § 2 B1 .1(b )(2 )(A) b ecau se th ere wer e te n o r m or e v ic ti m s, a 2 -le ve l s op hi st ic at ed m ean s en ha nc em en t u nd er § 2B 1.1 (b )(9 )(C) , a 4- le ve l ro le en ha nc em en t u nd er § 3 B1 .1(a ), an d a2-l ev el ob st ru ct io n o f jus ti ce en hanc em en t und er § 3C 1.1 . The ob st ru ct io n o f jus ti ce en ha nc em en t was du e to li en s Ki ng ha d fi le d a ga in stth e pr os ecu to r, cas e ag en t, d is tri ctco urt cl erk , anda nu m be r of jud ge s af te r he was in di ct ed . Kin g’s t ot al off en se lev el was t hu s 3 3, an d h is gu id el in e ran ge forCo un t 1 was 13 5 t o 1 68 m on th ’s im pr is on m en t. He was als o s ub ject t o am an da to ry two -y ear t erm

of i m pr is on m en t fo r Co un t 1 4, t o ru n c on se cu ti ve ly to the sen te nc e im po se d fo r Co un t 1 . Kin g o bjec te d t o t he 16 -le ve l en hanc em en t fo r th e in te nd ed 6lo ss ov er $ 1 m il li on , th e so ph is ti cat edm ean s en ha nc em en t, the rol e en ha nc em en t,

an d t he ob stru ct io n o f jus ti ce en ha nc em en t. As t o t he in te nd edlo ss , Kin g o nl y ob jecte d t o b ei ng he ldres po ns ib le forth e lo ss es in Co un ts 6, 1 0- 12 , 17 , and21 . At the sen te nc in g h eari ng , U.S. Pos ta l In sp ect orJes si ca Owentes ti fie d t ha t sh e h adex ecu te d asearch warran t atKin g’s h ou se , lo cat edat 5 77 Ran ki n S tre et . Pri orto ex ecu ti ng th e se arch warran t, s he ha d fo un d m ai l wi th Kin g’s n am e o n i t in th e tr as h a t tha t ad dr es s. Ad di ti on al ly, co un ty tax reco rd s s ho wedth atKin g own edth e h ou se , andW ard la w andKin g’s ro omm at e b ot h t ol d Owen th atKin g li ve d i n the ho us e. At Kin g’s h ou se , Owen fo un d n um ero us ch eck s an d re cei pt s m ad e o utto Ins ur an ce Se rv ic es Offic e, Seal y , BFP Po to m ac To wer, Reu te rs Am eri ca, Ma di so n To wer Ass oc ia te s. Sh e al so fou nda sh eetof p ap er wi th“ LP” an d t he acco un t n um

be r fo r th e 2 00 ParkLP ban k a cco un t wri tt enon itan d t hr ee ch eck s t ha t h adno t yet be enne go ti at ed . Fin al ly, Owen t es ti fie d t ha t Wardl aw to ld he r th atKin g g av e h im

all of t he ch eck s h e g av e to th ei r co -co ns pi rat or s t o de po si t. The co urt fo un d tha t anin te nd edlo ss am ou ntof $ 1,6 17 ,75 0.7 0 was supp orte d b y

a pr ep on de ran ce o f th e ev id en ce. As t o t he so ph is ti cat edm ean s en ha nc em en t, the co urt ex pl ai ne d t ha t ob ta in in g s to le n m ai l, fi li ng art ic le s o f in co rp or at io n, d ep os it in g t he ch eck s, an d m ak in g wi re tran sf

ers co ns ti tu te d s op hi st ic at edm ean s. Nex t, the co urt o ve rru le d 7Kin g’s o bjec ti on to th e ro le en ha nc em en t b ecau se : (1 ) th e co ns pi racy cou ldno t

ha ve oc cu rredwitho utKin g; an d (2 ) ev enif Ki ng was c orrectth atW ard la w was al so a le ad er, the en ha nc em en t co ul d s ti ll be ap pl ie d t o Ki ng forhi s l ead ers hi p ro le . As to th e o bs tru ct io n o f jus ti ce en ha nc em en t, Owentes ti fie d t ha t the li en s were fi le d wi th th e Ken tu cky Secr et ary of

Sta te , whi ch sh e kne w bec au se Kin g se nta co py of th e li en s t o h er an d t o t he U.S. Atto rn ey ’s Offic e inKentuc ky. Eithe r Kin g o r th e U.S. Att orne y ’s Offic e in Kentuc ky hadin di cat edth atth e li en s were fi le d i n Ken tu cky . The co urt fo un d t ha t the li en s wer e worth le ss , bu t i t ov erru le d Ki ng ’s ob

jecti on be cau se he ha d i nt en de d t o i nf lu en ce the off

ic ia ls to who m he sen t the li en s. Th e co urt the n s us ta in edanob jecti onKin g m ad e to th e en ha nc em en t fo r th e num be r of vi ct im s, m ak in g Ki ng ’s gu id el in e ran ge 10 8 t o 1 35 m on th s’ im

pr is on m en t fo r Co un t 1 . The co urt s en te nc edKin g t o 1 08 m on th s fo r Co un t 1 an d 2 4 m on th s fo r Co un t 1 4, t o ru n c on se cu ti ve . Kin g re ne wedhi s ob jecti on s. II. W e rev ie w a di st ric t co urt’s d eci si on to de ny a m ot io n t o wi th dr aw a g ui lt y pl ea fo r anab us e o f di sc ret io n. Uni te d Sta tes v. Br eh m , 44 2 F .3d12 91 , 12 98 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 6) . The d is tri ctco urt d oe s n otab us e it s d is cret io n u nl es s i ts de ci si on is “ arb it rary or u nr eas on ab le .” Id. (qu ot at io n o m it te d) . Whe n apa rty 8do es no t o bjec t t o ajud ge ’s all eg edbi as in th e d is tri ctco urt, we re vi ew fo r pl ai n

erro r. Uni te d Sta tes v. Ro dr ig ue z , 62 7 F .3d13 72 , 13 80 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ), cer t. de ni ed , 13 1 S .Ct. 1 84 0 (2 01 1) . The d efen dantm us t p ro ve pl ai n e rro r, whi ch ex is ts whe re: (1) th ere was anerro r; ( 2) th atwas p la in ; (3 ) th ataffe ct edth e d efen da nt ’s subs ta nt ia l ri gh ts ; an d (4 ) th e err or“ se rio us ly affect edth e fai rn es s o f th e jud ic ia l pr oc eed in gs .” Id. (qu ot at io n o m it te d) . An erro r ge ne ral ly onl y affe ct edth e de fen da nt ’s subs ta nt ia l ri gh ts if i t “ affe ct edth e o ut co m e o f th e d is tri ctco urt pr oc eed in gs .” Id. at 1 38 2 (q uo ta ti on s o m it te d) . Thu s, the de fen da nt“ m us t es tabl is h areas on ab le pro babi li ty of a d iff eren t re su ltbu t fo r th e err or .” Id. (quo ta ti onom it te d) . The di stric t co urt m ay

all ow a d efen da ntto withd raw a g ui lt y pl ea af te r th e co urt h as acce pt edth e p le a b utbe fo re i t h as im po se d asen te nc e if

“ th e d efen da nt can sh ow a f

ai r an d ju streas on forreque st in g t he withd rawal .” Fed .R.Cri m .P. 11 (d )(2 )(B) . The d is tri ctco urt “ m ay co ns id er the to ta li ty of th e ci rcu m st an ces su rro un di ng th e p le a.” Breh m , 44 2 F .3dat 1 29 8 (q uo ta ti on om it te d) . W e co ns id er fo urfact or s wh enrev ie win g t he di st ric t co urt’s d eci si on : “ (1 ) whe th er cl os e as si st an ce o f co un se l was av ai labl e; (2) whet he r th e p le a was kn owi ng an d vo lu nt ary; (3) whet he r jud ic ia l re so ur ces wou ldbe co ns erv ed ; an d (4 ) whe th er the go ve rn m en t wo ul d b e p reju di cedif t he de fen da ntwere al lo wedto withd raw h is 9pl ea.” Id. (qu ot at io n o m it te d) . A gu il ty ple a is kn owi ng an d v ol un ta ry if t he de fen da nten te redth e p le a wit ho utco erci onan d wi thanun de rs ta nd in g o f th e na tu re o f th e ch arg es an d t he co ns eque nc es of the pl ea. Uni te d Sta tes v. Br ow n , 58 6 F .3d13 42 , 13 46 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ), cer t. d en ie d , 13 0 S .Ct. 2 40 3 (2 01 0) . Whe n a d efen da ntha s re cei ve d c lo se ass is tanc e o f co un se l an d p le ad edgu il ty kno win gl y an d v ol un ta ril y , we hav e d ecl in edto gi ve co ns id erab le weig htor a tt en ti on to th e th irdan d fo urth fact or s. Uni te d Sta tes v. Go nz al ez -Mer ca do , 80 8 F .2d79 6, 8 01 (1 1t h C ir. 1 98 7) .

“ The re i s a s tro ng pre su m pt io n tha t the st at em en ts m ad e dur in g t he [pl ea] co ll oquy are tru e.” Uni te d Sta tes v. Medlo ck , 12 F.3d18 5, 1 87 (11 thCir . 19 94 ). The de fen da nt“be ars a he av y bu rd en ” to sh ow tha t s ta te m en ts m ad e und er o ath a t a p le a co ll oquy were fal se . Uni te d Sta tes v. Ro ge rs , 84 8 F .2d16 6, 1 68 (11 th Cir . 19 88 ). It i s up t o the di st ric t co urt t o d et erm in e “ [t]he go odfai th , cred ib il it y an d weig htof ade fen da nt ’s ass ert io ns in supp ort o f a m ot io n” to withd raw a g ui lt y pl ea. Breh m , 44 2 F .3dat 1 29 8 (q uo ta ti on om it te d) . The di stric t co urt d idno t ab us e it s d is cret io n i n d en y in g Ki ng ’s m ot io n t o withd raw h is gu il ty ple a. Fir st , Kin g h adclo se ass is ta nc e o f co un se l l ead in g up t o hi s p le a. He tes ti fie d dur in g h is pl ea co ll oquy tha t h e h adha d e no ug h t im e to di sc us s t he ch arg es ag ai ns t h im with h is att orne y , was s at is fie d wi th hi s at to rn ey ’s

10advi ce an d re pr es en ta ti on , andha d d is cu ss edth e p le a ag reem en t wi th hi s at to rn ey

be fo re s ig ni ng it . In ru li ng on th e m ot io n t o wi th dr aw, th e co urt ex pl ai ne d t ha t i t acce pt edth es e st at em en ts as t ru e, whi ch was wi th in it s d is cret io n. Se e Breh m , 44 2 F.3 d a t 1 29 8. Seco nd , Kin g’s g ui lty

pl ea was kn owi ng an d v ol un ta ry . He tes ti fie d dur in g hi s ex te ns iv e p le a co ll oquy tha t n ob od y ha d fo rcedor thr eat en edhi m to ge t h im

to si gnth e p le a ag reem en t, n ordi d a nyon e m ak e an y pro m is es to hi m

th atwere n ot co nt ai ne d i n t he pl ea ag reem en t. Inrul in g o n t he m ot io n t o wi th dr aw, th e co urt fo un d tha t Ki ng ha d n otsh own th es e st at em en ts to be fal se , whi ch was wi th in it s di sc ret io n. Se e id. Kin g a ls o a rg ue s o n app eal th athe fel t thr eat en edan d c oe rced to pl eadgu il ty becau se : (1 ) th e co urt p rev en te d h im fro m pre pa rin g am ean in gf

ul de fen se by den y in g h is m ot io n fo r a co nt inua nc e; an d (2 ) he fear edth athi s fa m il y m em be rs wou ldbe pro se cu te d i f he di d n otpl eadgu il ty. As t o t he fir st , arg um en t, th e co urt re ces se d t he tri al when he ask edth atst an db y co un se l b e ap po in te d t o rep res en t h im , anditst at edth atitwou ldall ow co un se l t o t ak e rec es se s dur in g t he tri al if a nyth in g a ro se th athe ha d n otha d t he ch an ce t o re vi ew. As t o t he sec on d arg um en t: (1) Kin g t es ti fie d t ha t n o o ne m ad e h im pro m is es no t co nt ai ne d i n t he pl ea ag reem en t; (2) th e p le a ag reem en t o nl y pro te ct edhi s m othe r fro m pr os ecu ti on ; an d (3 ) hi s at to rn ey st at edth athe ne ve r to ldKin g t ha t p le ad in g g ui lt y 11wou ldpro te cthi s fa m il y m em be rs . There fo re, the se cla im s ar e n otsupp orte d b y th e rec or d. The co urt al so en su redth atKin g u nd ers to odth e n atur e o f th e ch arg es an d th e co ns eque nc es of p le ad in g g ui lt y . After t he go ve rn m en t ex pl ai ne d t he ele m en ts of th e o ffen se s, Ki ng tes ti fie d t ha t h e d idno t h av e an y qu es ti on s ab ou t the ch arg es . Kin g a ls o t es ti fie d t ha t h e h adco m m it te d t he act s al le ge d i n t he in di ct m en t an d t ha t the go ve rn m en t co ul d p res en t ev id en ce t o s up po rt t he factua l ba si s t ha t i t p res en te d t o t he co urt. Bas edonth es e ad m is si on s an d t es ti m on y , th e co urt’s fi nd in g t ha t Ki ng pl ead edgu il ty kno win gl y an d v ol un ta ril y

was n ot arb it rary or unr eas on ab le . Se e Bre hm , 44 2 F .3dat 1 29 8. As to th e co ns eque nc es of hi s p le a, Kin g t es ti fie d tha t h e u nd ers to odth athe was g iv in g up anu m be r of rig ht s b y pl ead in g g ui lt y , th e p os si bl e p en al ti es , andth e se nt en ci ng pro ces s. Kin g’s s ta te m en ts at t he pl ea co ll oquy are pr es um edto be tru e. Se e Medlo ck , 12 F.3 d a t 1 87 . There fo re, Kin g p le ad edgu il ty kno win gl y an d v ol un ta ril y . Bec au se Kin g h adclo se ass is ta nc e o f co un se l an d p le ad edgu il ty kno win gl y an d v ol un ta ril y , we nee d n otco ns id er wh ethe r jud ic ia l re so ur ces wou ldbe co ns erv edor wh ethe r th e g ov ern m en t wo ul d b e p reju di cedif Ki ng were al lo wed to withd raw h is pl ea. Se e Gon za le z-Mer ca do , 80 8 F .2dat 8 01 . Howev er, the se fact or s al so weig h i n fa vo r of affi rm in g t he co urt’s d en ia l o f th e m ot io n. J ud ic ia l

12res ou rces wou ldno t b e co ns erv edbe cau se th e g ov ern m en t wo ul d a ga in have to

pr ep are f or Kin g’s t ria l an d p ay

th e tr av el ex pe ns es of i ts ou t-o f-s ta te witne ss es . The go ve rn m en t wo ul d b e p reju di cedbe cau se on e o f it s wi tn es se s h as di edsi nc e th e fi rs t d ay

of Ki ng ’s tri al , anditwou ldth eref or e b e u nabl e to pre se ntth e witne ss ’s li ve tes ti m on y

to th e jury. Bas edonth e ab ov e, th e d is tri ctco urt d idno t ab us e it s d is cret io n i n d en y in g Ki ng ’s m ot io n t o wi th dr aw hi s g ui lty pl ea. Fi na ll y , Kin g’s ar gu m en t tha t we s ho ul d p res um e th atJu dg e Cam p abu se d hi s d is cret io n i n d en y in g t he m ot io n t o wi th dr aw th e g ui lt y pl ea i s wi th ou t m eri t. Kin g m us t s ho w pl ai n e rro r to su ccee d o n t hi s ar gu m en t b ecau se he di d n otarg ue th atJu dg e Cam

p m ay have be enbi as edor i m

pa ire d b efo re the di st ric t co urt. Se e Rod ri gu ez , 62 7 F .3dat 1 38 0. Ki ng ha s n otest ab li sh edth atJu dg e Cam p e rredin de nyin g t he m ot io n b ecau se , as d is cu ss edab ov e, itwas n otanab us e o f di sc ret io n to do so . Kin g h as cit edno ev id en ce tha t J ud ge Cam p d en ie d t he m ot io n due to bi as or i m

pa ire d ju dg m en t. No r ha s Ki ng pre se nt edan y law i n s up po rt o f hi s as se rti on th atwe sh ou ld pe r s e fin d a n abu se of d is cret io n. Mo reo ve r, ev enif Kin g c ou ldsh ow an erro r th atwas p la in , he h as no t s ho wn t ha t h is subs ta nt ia l rig ht s wer e aff

ect edbe cau se th ere i s n o “ reas on ab le pro babi li ty of a d iff eren t res ul t b utforth e err or .” Rod ri gu ez , 62 7 F .3dat 1 38 2 (q uo ta ti on om it te d) . Ju dg e Fo rres te r rev ie wedKin g’s m ot io n t o wi th dr aw hi s g ui lt y pl ea de no vo an d fo un d 13th atKin g h adpl ead edgu il ty kno win gl y an d v ol un ta ril y

ba se d o n h is st at em en ts du rin g t he pl ea co ll oquy. Bas edon th e ab ov e, th e d is tri ctco urt d idno t ab us e it s di sc ret io n o r co m

m itpl ai n e rro r in de nyin g Ki ng ’s m ot io n t o wi th dr aw hi s g ui lt y pl ea. III. W e rev ie w a di st ric t co urt’s ac cep ta nc e o f a g ui lt y pl ea fo r anab us e o f di sc ret io n. Uni te d Sta tes v. Fr ye , 40 2 F .3d11 23 , 11 26 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ). Altho ug h a d efen da ntwaiv es no nju ris di ct io na l d efec ts by ple ad in g g ui lt y , he m ay att ackth e kn owi ng an d v ol un ta ry

na tu re o f hi s p le a o n app eal . W il so n v . Uni te d Sta tes , 96 2 F.2 d 9 96 , 99 7 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 2) . The s uf fic ie nc y of t he ev id en ce s up po rti ng a gu il ty ple a is no nju ris di ct io na l. Uni te d Sta tes v. Visc ome , 14 4 F .3d13 65 , 13 70 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 8) . Und er thi s ru le , a de fen da ntals o m ay no t ar gu e “ th athi s co nduc t di d n otm eetth e el em en ts of t he ch arg es .” Uni te d Sta tes v. Eva ns , 47 8 F .3d13 32 , 13 39 n.7 (11 th Cir . 20 07 ). Kin g wai ve d h is ch al le ng e to th e su ffi ci en cy of t he ev id en ce i n s up po rt o f hi s g ui lt y pl ea t o a gg rav at edid en ti ty the ft. Th e su ffi ci en cy of t he ev id en ce supp orti ng hi s co nv ic ti on is no nju ris di ct io na l. Se e Vis co me , 14 4 F .3dat 1 37 0. Bec au se Kin g d oe s n otarg ue th atanin su ffi ci en t fa ctua l b as is ren de redhi s p le a

14in vo lu nt ary, we wil l n otco ns id er the m eri ts of t hi s cl ai m . Se e W il so n , 96 2 F .2dat 99 7.

IV. A def en da ntwaiv es all no nju ris di ct io na l d efec ts in hi s p ro ceed in gs whenhe

“ kn owi ng ly, vo lu nt ari ly, an d wi th th e b en efi t o f co m pe te ntco un se l” pl ead s g ui lt y . Uni te d Sta tes v. Y

un is , 72 3 F .2d79 5, 7 96 (11 th Cir . 19 84 ). Ju ris di ct io na l erro rs im pl ic at e “ a co urt’s p owe r to ad jud ic at e th e m at te r be fo re i t.” Uni te d Sta tes v. Pete r , 31 0 F .3d70 9, 7 12 (11 th Cir . 20 02 ). “ Whe th er a cl ai m is ‘juri sd ic ti on al ’ de pe nd s o n wh ethe r th e cl ai m canbe res ol ve d b y

ex am in in g t he face of the in di ct m en t o r th e rec or d a t the ti m e o f th e p le a wit ho utrequi rin g fu rth er pr oc eed in gs .” Uni te d Sta tes v. To men y , 14 4 F .3d74 9, 7 51 (11 th Cir . 19 98 ) (quo ta ti onom it te d) . For e xa m pl e, a cl ai m

th atanin di ct m en t d idno t ch arg e an of fen se is juri sd ic ti on al . Id. A sp eedy tri al vi ol at io n i s n on

juri sd ic ti on al . Y

un is , 72 3 F .2dat 7 96 . As d is cu ss edab ov e, Kin g p le ad edgu il ty kno win gl y , vo lu nt ari ly, an d wi th cl os e as si st an ce o f co un se l. Se e Y un is , 72 3 F .2dat 7 96 . Thu s, h e wai ve d re vi ew of th e d en ia l o f hi s m ot io n fo r a co nt in ua nc e an d o f an y sp eedy tri al vi ol at io n,

15whi chare n on juri sd ic ti on al de fect s. Se e To men y , 14 4 F .3dat 7 51 . There fo re, we wil l n otrev ie w th es e cl ai m s. V. W e rev ie w a di st ric t co urt’s l os s ca lc ul at io n fo r cl ear e rro r. Uni te d Sta tes v. Se pu lv ed a , 11 5 F .3d88 2, 8 90 (11 th Cir . 19 97 ). Cle ar erro r rev ie w is de fere nt ia l,

“ an d we wi ll no t d is tu rb a di st ric t co urt’s fi nd in gs un le ss we are l eftwith ade fin it e an d fi rm co nv ic ti on th ata m is ta ke ha s b eenco m m it te d.” Uni te d Sta tes v. Ghe rt le r , 60 5 F .3d12 56 , 12 67 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ) (quo ta ti on s o m it te d) . If th e de fen da ntch al le ng es a factua l b as is forhi s s en te nc e, th e g ov ern m en t m us t es tabl is h “ th e d is pu te d fa ctby a prep on de ran ce o f th e ev id en ce” u si ng “ rel iabl e an d s pe ci fic ev id en ce.” Se pu lv ed a , 11 5 F .3dat 8 90 (qu ot at io ns om it te d) . The co urt m ay ba se it s fa ctua l fi nd in gs on “ fact s ad m it te d b y a de fen dant ’s pl ea o f gu il ty, un di sp ut edst at em en ts in th e [PSI ], or e vi de nc e p res en te d a t the sen te nc in g he ari ng .” Uni te d Sta tes v. Wils on , 88 4 F .2d13 55 , 13 56 (11 th Cir . 19 89 ). A def en da ntwho co m

m it s a t he ft o ffen se rece iv es a 12 -le ve l en ha nc em en t i f th e lo ss is m or e th an$2 00 ,00 0, a 1 4- le ve l en ha nc em en t i f th e lo ss is m or e th an $4 00 ,00 0, an d a16 -le ve l en ha nc em en t i f th e lo ss is m or e th an$1 ,00 0,0 00 . U.S.S.G. § 2 B1 .1(b )(1 )(G)-( I). The lo ss am ou nt“ is th e g reat er o f actua l l os s o r in te nd edlo ss .” Id

. § 2 B1 .1, co m

m en t. (n .3). “ [T]he d is tri ctco urt m ay ho ldall 16pa rti ci pa nt s i n aco ns pi racy resp on si bl e fo r th e lo ss es res ul ti ng fro m th e reas on ab ly fores eeab le act s o f co -co ns pi rat or s i n fu rth eran ce o f th e co ns pi racy.” Uni te d Sta tes v. Da bb s , 13 4 F .3d10 71 , 10 82 (11 th Cir . 19 98 ). The di stric t co urt d idno t cl earl y err i n app lying a 16 -le ve l en ha nc em en t fo r a lo ss ov er $ 1,0 00 ,00 0. Ki ng on ly chal le ng es th e lo ss es as t o C ou nt s 6 , 10 -1 2, 1 7, an d 2 1, an d a ny argu m en ts as t o t he rem ai ni ng co un ts are t hu s ab an do ne d. Se e Uni te d Sta tes v. J

erni ga n , 34 1 F .3d12 73 , 12 83 n.8 (11 th Cir . 20 03 ) (s ta ti ng th ata pa rty aban do ns anis su e n otrai se d i n i ts in it ia l b rie f). The se lo ss es were i n fu rth eran ce o f th e co ns pi racy becaus e th ey res ul te d fr om

Kin g’s co -co ns pi rat or s de po si ti ng st ol ench eck s an d wi th dr awin g fu nd s fr om th e acc ou nt s i nt o wh ic h t he ch eck s wer e d ep os it ed , whi ch was the aim of the co ns pi racy. Se e Dab bs , 13 4 F .3d at10 82 . Add it io na ll y , Owen’s t es ti m on y est ab li sh edth atth e lo ss es were re as on ab ly fo res eeab le to Kin g. Sh e te st ifi edth atW ard la w st at edth atKin g p ro vi de d h im with t he ch eck s t ha t h e g av e to th ei r co -co ns pi rat or s t o d ep os it . Add it io na ll y , sh e id en ti fie d d oc um en ts co nn ect edto th e tr an sa ct io ns in Co un ts 6, 1 0- 12 , 17 , and21 , an d t hr ee ch eck s t ha t h adno t b een ne go ti at ed , whi ch were fo un d i n Ki ng ’s ho us e. Sp eci fic al ly, Owen i de nt ifi eda rece ip t fo r an d c op y of the $1 43 ,35 9.2 9 c he ckto In su ran ce Se rv ic es Offic e (Co un t 6 ); t he in vo ic es an d re cei pt s fo r th e $ 16 1,6 81 .95 17an d $ 15 ,33 6.8 0 c he ck s t o S eal y , Inc . (Co un t 1 0) ; the $1 14 ,45 8.3 7 c he ckto BFP

Po to m ac To wer (Co un t 1 1) ; a c op y of the $1 90 ,91 0.1 2 c he ckto Reu te rs Am eri ca (Co un t 1 2) ; re cei pt s s ho win g a$9 3,1 67 .91 de po si t, wh ic h s he de te rm in edwas o f th e ch eckto Mad is on Tower As so ci at es ba se d o n t he da te , acco un t n um be r, an d de po si t am ou ntas s ho wn o n t he rece ip ts (Co un t 1 7) ; a s he etof p ap er wi th “ LP” an d t he acco un t n um

be r fo r th e 2 00 ParkLP Ban k o f Am eri ca ac co un t wri tt enon it(Co un t 2 1) ; an d t hr ee ch eck s tha t h adno t b een ne go ti at ed , inth e am ou nt s o f $1 42 ,69 4.1 0, $ 22 ,78 2.4 4, an d $ 12 0,9 06 .12 . Owen’s t es ti m on y

als o e st ab li sh edth atKin g l iv edat t he ho us e whe re the se do cu m en ts were fo un d. Sh e te st ifi edth atpri or to ex ecu ti ng th e se arch warran t, sh e fo un d m ai l wi th Kin g’s n am e o n i t i n t he tra sh at t ha t ad dr es s, an d t ax reco rd s sh owe d t ha t Ki ng own edth e h ou se . W ard la w andKin g’s ro omm at e b ot h t ol d Owen t ha t Ki ng li ve d i n t he ho us e. Thu s, the co urt d idno t cl earl y err i n fi nd in g th atKin g was res po ns ib le forth e lo ss es as t o C ou nt s 6 , 10 -1 2, 1 7, an d 2 1 a ndas t o th e th ree c he ck s t ha t h adno t b een ne go ti at ed . VI. W e rev ie w a di st ric t co urt’s fa ctua l fi nd in gs as t o the us e o f so ph is ti cat ed m ean s fo r cl ear e rro r. Ghe rt le r , 60 5 F .3dat 1 26 7. A d efen da ntrece iv es a two -le ve l en hanc em en t und er U.S.S.G. § 2 B1 .1(b )(9 )(C) if h is off en se “ in vo lv ed 18so ph is ti cat edm ean s.” Id. (qu ot at io n o m it te d) . This en ha nc em en t i s ap pr op ria te

whe re the m ean s u se d wer e “ es pe ci al ly com pl ex ” o r th e o ffen se or c on ceal m en t o f th e o ffen se was “ es pe ci al ly int ric at e.” Id. § 2 B1 .1, co m m en t. (n .8). Th e en ha nc em en t i s p ro pe r whe re the “ to ta li ty of th e sc he m e was so ph is ti cat ed ” ev en if t he in di vi du al act io ns co m pr is in g t he sch em e were n otso ph is ti cat ed . Ghe rt le r , 60 5 F .3dat 1 26 7. Us in g “ fic ti ti ou s en ti ti es , cor po rat e sh el ls , or o ffs ho re fi na nc ia l acco un ts ” are ord in ari ly sop hi st ic at ed . U.S.S.G. § 2B 1.1 , comm en t. (n .8). The co urt d idno t cl earl y

err i n app lying th e so ph is ti cat edm ean s en ha nc em en t i n t hi s ca se . Alth ou gh so m e o f th e in di vi du al st ep s i nv ol ve d i n t hi s co ns pi racy m ay

ha ve be enun so ph is ti cat ed —s uc h a s d ep os it in g c he ck s, in co rp or at in g b us in es se s, o pe ni ng ba nkacco un ts , andwithdrawi ng fun ds fro m th e ba nkacco un ts —the “ to ta li ty of th e sc he m e was so ph is ti cat ed .” Ghe rt le r , 60 5 F .3d at12 67 . The t ot al it y

of t hi s s ch em e in vo lv edob ta in in g s to le n b us in es s ch eck s, in co rp or at in g s he ll co m

pa ni es in th e n am es of t he pa y ees on th e st ol ench eck s with t he Geor gi a Sec ret ary of Sta te , us in g the in co rp or at io n d oc um en ts fro m th e Geo rg iaSecr et ary of

Sta te to op enbu si ne ss ch eck in g a cco un ts , dep os it in g t he st ol ench eck s i n t he acco un ts , andwithd rawi ng th e fu nd s an d m ak in g wi re tra ns fers fro m

th e acc ou nt s. Kin g a rg ue s t ha t h e sh ou ldno t h av e rec ei ve d t hi s en ha nc em en t b ecau se th e co m pani es were n otfic ti ti ou s en ti ti es . His a rg um en t i s

19m eri tl es s, as he in co rp or at edsh el l co m pa ni es th atwere n otus edto co nduc t bu si ne ss . Se e U.S.S.G. § 2 B1 .1, co m m en t. (n .8). Acc or di ng ly, th e co urt d idno t cl earl y err i n app lying a two -le ve l en ha nc em en t fo r th e u se of s op hi st ic at edm ean s.

VII. W e rev ie w a di st ric t co urt’s ap pl ic at io n o f a § 3B 1.1 rol e en ha nc em en t fo r cl ear e rro r. Uni te d Sta tes v. Ma rt in ez , 58 4 F .3d10 22 , 10 25 (11 thCir . 20 09 ). Und er the Sen te nc in g Gu id el in es , a de fen da ntrece iv es a fo ur -p oi ntoff en se lev el in crea se forbe in g “ anorg an iz er o r le ad er o f a cri m in al act iv it y th atin vo lv edfiv e orm or e p art ic ip an ts or wa s o th erwi se ex te ns iv e.” U.S.S.G. § 3 B1 .1(a ). Rel ev an t fact or s i n d et erm in in g wh ethe r a § 3B 1.1 (a) e nh an cem en t i s warran te d i nc lu de : (1 ) ex erci se of d eci si on m ak in g aut ho rit y , (2) th e n atur e o f pa rti ci pa ti on inth e co m

m is si on of t he off

en se , (3) th e rec ru it m en t o f acco m pl ic es , (4) th e cl ai m edrig htto a la rg er s ha re o f th e fru it s o f th e cri m e, (5 ) th e d eg ree o f pa rti ci pa ti on inpl an ni ng or o rg an iz in g t he of fen se , (6) th e n atur e an d s co pe of t he il le ga l ac ti vi ty, an d (7 ) th e de gr ee o f co nt ro l an d aut ho rit y ex erci se d o ve r ot he rs . Mar ti ne z , 58 4 F .3dat 1 02 6 (q uo ta ti on om it te d) . It i s n otne ces sa ry th atev ery fact or is pre se ntfor

th e en ha nc em en t t o b e ap pl ie d i n apa rti cu la r cas e. A rol e en ha nc em en t i s ap pr op ria te on ly whe re the de fen da ntex erci se d “ so m e co nt ro l, in flu en ce o r de ci si on -m ak in g aut ho rit y ov er an ot he r pa rti ci pantin th e cri m in al

20act iv ity .” It i s i ns uf fic ie ntth ata de fen da ntm erel y m an ag edth e as se ts of t he co ns pi racy. The en ha nc em en t i s i nt en de d “ to ad dr es s co nc ern s ab ou t re la ti ve res po ns ib il it y .” Id. (qu ot at io n o m it te d) . W e uph el d arol e en ha nc em en t u nd er § 3 B1 .1(a ) whe re the de fen da ntrecrui te d a ndin st ru ct edtwo co -co ns pi rat or s. Uni te d Sta tes v. N

di ay e , 43 4 F .3d12 70 , 13 04 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ). Mo re tha n o ne m em be r of a co ns pi racy can qua li fy as alea de r or

org an iz er u nd er thi s s ect io n. U.S.S.G. § 3 B1 .1, co m

m en t. (n .4). The di stric t co urt d idno t cl earl y err i n app lying a fo ur -le ve l ro le en ha nc em en t u nd er § 3B 1.1 (a). Se e Ma rt in ez , 58 4 F .3dat 1 02 5. A num be r of 1 fact or s s up po rt t he ap pl ic at io n o f th is enha nc em en t. Kin g o rg an iz edth e en ti re cri m in al sch em e, ob ta in edth e st ol ench eck s wi th ou t wh ic h t he co ns pi racy woul d ha ve be enim

po ss ib le , andrecrui te d Ward la w to op enth e b an k a cco un ts an d de po si t the ch eck s. Thus , th e n atur e o f Kin g’s p art ic ip at io n, h is recr ui tm en t o f hi s fir stco -co ns pi rat or , andth e d eg ree t o wh ic h h e o rg an iz edth e co ns pi racy all supp ort the ap pl ic at io n o f th e ro le enha nc em en t. Se e Ma rt in ez , 58 4 F .3dat 1 02 6. Nex t, the ev id en ce s ho wedth atKin g’s an d Ward la w’ s co -co ns pi rat or s re ta in ed on ly a sm al l p orti on of t he pro ceed s an d t ha t Ki ng ret ai ne d am uc h l arg er s ha re o f Kinghas wa ived any

argument under § 3B 1.1(a) that the criminal activity did not 1 involve at least five participa nts or that it was not otherwise e x tensive bec ause he did not raise these issues in his initi al brief . See J ernigan , 341 F.3d at 1283 n.8.

21th e p ro ceed s t ha n Ward la w di d. Ki ng ’s cla im edsh are o f th e p ro fit s o f th e

co ns pi racy thu s s up po rts th e ap pl ic at io n o f th e ro le en ha nc em en t as well . Se e Mar ti ne z , 58 4 F .3dat 1 02 6. Th e ex te ns iv e n atur e an d s co pe of the co ns pi racy supp ort the ap pl ic at io n o f th e en ha nc em en t b ecau se th is co ns pi racy caus edan actua l l os s o f $9 19 ,43 6.2 6 a ndanin te nd edlo ss of $ 1,6 17 ,75 0.7 0. Se e id. As t o t he fin al fact or , itap pe ars th atKin g e xe rci se d c on tro l o ve r W ard la w be cau se Kin g d et erm in edth e p ro ceed s Wardl aw wou ldrece iv e fro m th e co ns pi racy; pr ov id edth e st ol ench eck s t o Ward la w to de po si t; an d re ta in ed do cu m en ta ti on forth e v ari ou s t ran sa ct io ns in vo lv edin th e co ns pi racy, suc h a s co pi es of c he ck s, the in vo ic es th atcam e with s om e o f th e ch eck s, an d re cei pt s sh owi ng th atde po si ts ha d b een m ad e. Se e Ma rt in ez , 58 4 F .3dat 1 02 6. Th eref or e, th is fact orals o s up po rts th e ap pl ic at io n o f th e en ha nc em en t. Kin g a ls o a rg ue s tha t thi s en ha nc em en t was im pr op erl y ap pl ie d b ecau se W ard la w, no t Ki ng , ledth e co ns pi racy. Eve n i f W ard la w was al so a le ad er o r or ga ni zer o f th e co ns pi racy, tha t fa ctwou ldno t p recl ud e Kin g fr om rece iv in g t he ro le en ha nc em en t as well be cau se m or e th anon e m em be r of a co ns pi racy can qu al ify as a l ead er o r or ga ni zer. Se e U.S.S.G. § 3 B1 .1, co m m en t. (n .4). Bas edon Kin g’s ro le in org an iz in g t hi s co ns pi racy andob ta in in g t he st ol en ch eck s es se nt ia l t o t he co ns pi racy, his recru it m en t o f W ard la w, th e fac t tha t h e 22cl ai m eda la rg e sh are o f th e co ns pi racy’ s p ro fit s, the ex te ns iv e n atur e an d s co pe of

th e co ns pi racy, andKin g’s ap pa ren t co nt ro l o ve r W ard law, th e fo ur -le ve l ro le en ha nc em en t was pro pe rly app li edin th is cas e. Se e Ndia ye , 43 4 F .3dat 1 30 4.

VIII.

“ W e rev ie w a di st ric t co urt’s fa ctua l fi nd in g o f ob st ru ct io n o f jus ti ce fo r cl ear e rro r” an d t he ap pl ic at io n o f U.S.S.G. § 3 C1 .1 t o t he factua l fi nd in gs de no vo . Uni te d Sta tes v. S

ni pe s , 61 1 F .3d85 5, 8 71 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ), cer t. d en ie d , 13 1 S .Ct. 2 96 2 (2 01 1) . A defe nd an t m ay rece iv e a two- le ve l en ha nc em en t fo r ob st ru ct in g o r im

pe di ng th e ad m in is tra ti on of ju st ic e whe re h e “ wil lfu ll y ob st ru ct edor i m

pe de d, o r at te m

pt edto ob st ru ctor i m

pe de , th e ad m in is tra ti on of jus ti ce wi th res pe ctto th e in ve st ig at io n, p ro se cu ti on , or s en te nc in g o f th e in st an t of fen se of c on vi ct io n, an d . . . th e o bs tru ct iv e co nduc t re la te d t o . . . th e de fen da nt ’s off

en se of c on vi ct io n a ndan y rel ev an t co nduc t.” U.S.S.G. § 3C 1.1 .

“ Obs tru ct iv e co nduc t ca n v ary wid el y in na tu re, d eg ree o f pl an ni ng , and se rio us ne ss .” U.S.S.G. § 3 C1 .1, co m m en t. (n .3). Th e d efen da ntne edno t b e su cces sf ul inhi s at te m

ptto im pe de or o bs tru ctth e adm in is tra ti on of ju st ic e. Uni te d Sta tes v. Ta

ylor , 88 F.3d93 8, 9 44 (11 th Cir . 19 96 ).

23Kin g m ak es two arg um en ts as t o t hi s en ha nc em en t. His fir st—tha t the

di st ric t co urt’s o nl y

factua l fi nd in g a s t o t hi s en ha nc em en t was th atli en s wer e fil ed —i s b el ie d b y

th e rec or d. Th e co urt al so fou ndth atth e li en s wer e le ga ll y worth le ss , bu t tha t Ki ng in te nd edto in flu en ce the off ic ia ls to who m

th e li en s wer e se nt . His s eco ndarg um en t—th atth e li en s wer e in co m pr eh en si bl e an d worth le ss —d oe s n otren de r th is en ha nc em en t i m pr op er. The ob st ru ct io n o f jus ti ce en ha nc em en t i s ap pl ic ab le ev enwher e th e d efen da ntdi d n otsu cces sf ul ly obs tru ct orim pe de th e ad m in is tra ti on of ju st ic e. Se eU.S.S.G. § 3 C1 .1. Here , Kin g d idno t su cces sf ul ly infl ue nc e th e o ffi ci al s t o wh om he sen t the li en s, b utas the co urt fo un d, h e d idin te ndforth atou tc om e to oc cur. Becaus e Kin g a tt em pt edto ob st ru ctjus ti ce b y

in flu en ci ng off

ic ia ls work in g o n h is cas e whe n h e fi le d a ndsen t th e li en s, the di st ric t co urt d idno t cl earl y err i n app lying th is en ha nc em en t. Se e Ta yl or , 88 F.3dat 9 44 . Fo r th e fo reg oi ng reas on s, we af firm Kin g’s co nv ic ti on s an d s en te nc es . AFFIRMED.

24