2010 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 7-21-2010 

# U SA v . Ge r ardo F e rn ande z P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 09-3917

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2010 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " U SA v . Ge r ar do F e rn andez " (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 920. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/920NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

____________ N o. 09- 3917

____________ UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. GER AR DO FERNA ND EZ, A ppel l ant

____________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt

fort he D i s t r i ctof N ew J er s ey ( D . C . N o. 08- cr - 00673) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e A nne E. T hom ps on

____________ A r gued J une 29, 2010 B e f o re : S L O V IT E R , B A R R Y a n d H A R D IM A N , C i r cui tJudges .

( Fi l ed: J ul y21, 2010) N or m an G r os s [A r gued] O ffi ce of U ni t ed St at es A t t or ney C am den F ederal B uil ding & C ou rtho use 401 M arketSt r eet P. O . B ox 2098, 4t h Fl oor C amden, N J 08101- 0000 G eor ge S. L eone S am u el A . S tern O ffi ce of U ni t ed St at es A t t or ney 970 B r oad St r eet R oom 7002

N ew ark, N J 07102- 0000 A t t or neys f

orAppel l ee N i chol as C . H arbi s t[A r gued] Bl a n k Ro me 21 0 L ake D ri ve E ast S u it e 2 0 0 , W o o d land F all s C o rpo rate P ark C herryH i l l , N J 08002- 0000 A t t or ney f

orAppel l ant

____________

OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

____________ H A R D IM A N , C i r cui tJudge . Ge r a r d o F e r n a n d e z wa s i n d i c t e d o n o n e c o u n to f p e r j u r yi n v i o l a t i o n o f

1 8 U. S . C. § 1 6 2 3 (a ) a n d o n e c o u n t o f o b s tru c tio n o f

ju s tic e in v io la tio n o f

1 8 U .S .C . § 1 5 1 2 (c )( 2 ). A j u ryf o u n d F e r n a n d e z g u i l t yo f t h e f o r me rc h a r g e a n d n o tg u i l t yo f th e l a t t e rc h a r g e . On a p p e a l, F e rn a n d e z ra is e s s e v e ra l c la im s o f e rr o r i n h is in d ic tm e n t, tr ia l, a n d s e n te n c in g . W e wi l l a f

f i r m. I. B eca us e w e w r i t e fort he part i es , w ho ar e fa m i l i arw i t h t he fa ct s and pr ocedur al hi s t oryof the ca s e, w e r ecountonl ythatw hi ch i s es s ent i al t o ourdeci s i on. I n J une 2006, t he FB I and a f eder al gr and j urys i t t i ng i n T r ent on, N ew J er s ey began i nves t i gat i ng publ i c corrupt i on i n Pas s ai c, N ew J er s ey . A s partof i t s i nves t i gat i on, th e F B I in c o rp o ra ted a d u m m yin su ra n c e c o m p a n y , C o a sta l S o lu tio n s, w h ich w a s u se d to b rib e lo c a l p o lit icia n s in c lu d in g P a ss a ic C ityC o u n c ilm a n Jo n a th a n S o to . S o to3

re p re se n ted th a t h e c o u ld ste e r in su ra n c e c o n tra c ts f ro m th e P a ss a ic C ityC o u n c il ( C ounci l ) t o C oas t al Sol ut i ons and i ndi cat ed t o an FB I i nform antthats om e of the br i bes had gone t o t w o ot herl ocal pol i t i ci ans : M ay orSam uel R i ver a and Counci l m an M ar cel l us J acks on. A s partof the schem e t o st eer i nsurance b usi ness t o C oast al , S oto l ob bied against r es ol ut i ons on t he C ounci l ’ s M ar ch 22, 2007 agenda thatw oul d have a w ar ded i ns ur ance contr act s t o anothercompany , B r ow n & B r ow n. A tthi s t i m e, Fernandez w as al s o a m e m b e r o f

th e C o u n c il. A t5: 07 p. m . on M ar ch 22, t w o hour s befor e the s t artof the meet i ng, Sot o pl ace d a cal l t o Fernandez ’ s cel l phone t o di s cus s the vot e. T he ca l l w as i nt er cept ed bya w i r et ap the FB I had pl ace d on Sot o’ s cel l phone. D ur i ng the conve r s at i on, Sot o t ol d Fer nandez that : R i ver a had i nform ed Sot o, J acks on and anothercounci l m ember , J oe G ar ci a, that“he does n’ tw antB r ow n & B r ow n t o go t hr ough”; R i ver a t ol d Sot o t o “vot e dow n B r ow n and B row n ” a n d S o to ag ree d to d o so ; and R ivera d ir ec ted S o to to “ rea ch o u t t o G erry [F ernand ez]. ” A pp . at15 2. S oto al so t old Fernan dez thattheyw ere goi ng t o v ote agai nst th e B ro w n & B ro w n re s o lu tio n s to s a v e th e C ity m o n e y . I d. at153. Fer nandez r es ponded “[t ] hat ’ s r i ght . ” Id . A t th e e n d o f th e c all , F ern an d ez said “I’ll g ive S am m y[R ivera ] a cal l t o l ethi m [know ] t hatI know w hat ’ s goi ng on. ” Id . at154. I m m edi at el yaft er s peaki ng w i t h Sot o, Fer nandez pl ace d a ca l l t o R i ver a, w hi ch w as notr ecor ded. A pp. at4

330- 31. B ot h of the B r ow n & B r ow n r es ol ut i ons w er e def eat ed atthe M ar ch 22 meet i ng, wi th S o t o , J a c k s o n , Ga r c i a , a n d F e rn a n d e z v o t i n g a g a i n s tth e m. I n Sept ember2007, R i ver a, Sot o, and J acks on w er e arr es t ed byfede r al l aw enfor cementoffi ci al s fort hei ri nvol vementi n t he br i berys cheme. A ft erthe arr es t s , t he g ra n d ju rysu b p o e n a e d F e rn a n d e z to tes tifyo n N o v e m b e r 1 4 , 2 0 0 7 . D u rin g h is te s tim o n y , F e rn a n d e z d e n ie d s p e a k in g w ith a n y o n e a b o u t th e M a rc h 2 2 , 2 0 0 7 v o te . Speci fi cal l y , Fer nandez t es t i fi ed thathe had ne verdi s cus s ed i ns ur ance m att er s pendi ng befor e the C i t yC ounci l w i t h Sot o orR i ver a, byt el ephone orot herw i s e. W hen as ked w hetherhe w oul d r eca l l a di s cus s i on w i t h Sot o abouti ns ur ance m att er s , Fernandez re p lied : “A b so lu tely . I w o u ld h a v e sla p p e d h im . . . . B e c a u se I d o n ’t tell a n yb o d yh o w to vot e. I don’ tw antanybodyt el l i ng m e how t o vot e ei t her . ” A pp. at25, 1015. Fer nandez w as s ubs equent l yi ndi ct ed on one c ountof per j uryand one c ountof obs t ruct i on of j us t i ce b a s e d o n h i s g r a n d j u r y t e s t i m o n y. A tt r i al , Fer nandez t es t i fi ed i n hi s ow n defe ns e. T he thrus tof hi s defe ns e w as t hat he di d notknow i ngl yl i e t o t he gr and j ury . Fer nandez averr ed thathe had f or got t en about th e M a rc h 2 2 c a lls f

o r v a rio u s re a so n s, in c lu d in g th a t: h e re c e iv e d n u m e ro u s p h o n e c a lls everydayand w as a bus yper s on, t he ca l l fr om Sot o w as notm emora bl e bec aus e i tl as t ed o n lytw o m in u tes a n d m e re lyre p e a ted in f o rm a tio n F e rn a n d e z h a d a lre a d ylea rn e d a t C ity C ounci l m eet i ngs , and Fernandez had no r eas on t o l i e t o t he gr and j urybeca us e he w asT h e D istric t C o u rt h a d ju risd ictio n u n d e r 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 2 3 1 a n d w e h a v e a p p e llate 1 juri sd ict ion p u rsua n t t o 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 9 1 an d 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 7 4 2 (a). 5 noti nvol ved i n t he under l y i ng br i berys cheme. T he j uryfound Fernandez gui l t yof per j ur ybutnotgui l t yof obs t ruct i on of j us t i ce. A ts ent enci ng, t he D i s t r i ctC our tappl i ed a tw o- l evel enhanc ementforobs t ruct i on of j us t i ce pur s uantt o § 3C 1. 1 of the U ni t ed St at es Sent enci ng G ui del i nes ( U SSG or G ui del i nes ) ; as a r es ul t , Fer nandez fac ed a G ui del i nes r ange of 21 t o 26 m onths i m pr i s onm ent . T he D i s t r i ctC our tvar i ed dow nw ar d and i m pos ed a s ent ence of 18 m ont hs i m pr i s onm ent . Fer nandez fi l ed thi s t i m el yappea l , i n w hi ch he r ai s es num er ous i s s ues re g a rd in g th e v a lid ityo f h is in d ictm e n t, ev id e n tiary ru lin g s m a d e b yth e D istric t C o u rt, the j ur yi ns t ruct i ons , and the appl i cat i on of the tw o- poi ntobs t ruct i on of j us t i ce e n h a n c e m e n t. 1 II. A . T he I ndi ctm ent B efor e tr i al , Fer nandez m oved t o di s m i s s hi s i ndi ctm ent , ar gui ng thati tw as i m perm i s s i bl yambi guous and dupl i ci t ous . W e exe r ci s e pl enaryr evi ew overthe D i s t r i ct C our t ’ s l egal concl us i ons i n deny i ng t he mot i on and r evi ew the C our t ’ s fac tual fi ndi ngs f o r c le a r e rr o r. U

nited S tates v. B arbo sa , 2 7 1 F . 3 d 4 3 8 , 4 6 9 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 1 ). Fernandez cl ai m s t hatt he ques t i ons pos ed t o hi m befor e the gr and j urycoul d not s uppor tper

j ur ychar ges beca us e theyw er e funda m ent al l yambi guous . A l t hough a tr i al6

c o u rt h a s th e p o w e r to d ism iss a p e rju ryc o u n t w h e n th e p ro se c u to r’s q u e stio n s a re f a tally a m b ig u o u s , s ee U

ni t ed Stat es v. Ser af

i ni , 167 F. 3d 812, 820 ( 3d C i r . 1999) , thi s i s not su c h a c a se . “[ T ]h e e x iste n c e o f ‘so m e a m b ig u ity ’ in a f a lse lya n sw e re d q u e stio n is gener al l ynoti ncons i s t entw i t h a convi ct i on forper j ury . ” U ni t ed Stat es v. C am

per , 384 F. 3d 1073, 1076 ( 9t h C i r . 2004) ( ci t at i on om i t t ed) . R ather , i n i ns t ance s of l es s than fundament al ambi gui t y , “i ti s fort he pet i tj uryt o deci de w hi ch cons t ruct i on the def endant pl ace d on t he ques t i on. ” Ser af i ni , 167 F. 3d at820 ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks and ci t at i on o m itted). I ti s cl earfr om t he cont extof the ques t i ons and the r ecor d as a w hol e that F ern an d ez u n d erstoo d w h at th e p rose cu tor w as a sk ing h im . T h o u g h ad v ised at th e start of hi s gr and j ur yappea r ance t hat“dur i ng the cour s e of the ques t i ons and the cour s e of this proceed i ng t od ay , i f y ou hav e anyqu est i on s or anycon fusi on abo ut anyqu est i on s, y ou’ l l l etus know [, ] ” A pp. at978, Fer nandez neveri ndi cat ed thathe w as confus ed byany of the ques t i ons t o w hi ch he a l l egedl yr es ponded fa l s el y . M or eover , Fernandez unequi vocal l ydeni ed thathe r ece i ved anyphone ca l l s r el at i ve t o t he i ns ur ance r es ol ut i ons p rio r to th e v o te o n M a rc h 2 2 , an d in d e n y in g th a t h e h a d a d isc u ss io n w ith S o to r egar di ng t he i ns ur ance m att er s , Fernandez i ns i s t ed thathe w oul d have r emem ber ed s uch a d is c u s s io n . See U

ni t ed Stat es v. Long , 5 3 4 F . 2 d 1 0 9 7 , 1 1 0 0 (3d C ir . 1 9 7 6 ).7

T he fa ctt hatques t i ons coul d have be en more s peci fi c i s notevi dence of fundament al ambi gui t y ; t hus , anyar gum entthatFernandez di d notunder s t and the q u e s t i o n s t o w h i c h h e w a s r e s p o n d i n g w a s o n e f o rth e j u r y. Fernandez al s o ar gues t hatC ountI of the i ndi ctm ents houl d have be en di s m i s s ed a s d u p l i c i t o u s “ b e c a u s e t h e Go v e r n me n tc h a r g e d mu l t i p l e f a l s e s t a t e me n t s i n th e s a me c o u n t in v o lv in g th e sa m e su b jec t.” T h e D istric t C o u rt d e n ied F e rn a n d e z ’s m o tio n to di s m i s s t he i ndi ctm enti n t hi s r egar d, opt i ng t o r es ol ve anyi s s ues bychar gi ng the j uryt hat a v e rd ic t o f

g u ilty o n C o u n t I re q u ir e d u n a n im ity a s to a t le a s t o n e p e rj u ri o u s s ta te m e n t. Fernandez cont ends t hatt he unani m i t yi ns t ruct i on w as i nappr opr i at e bec aus e s uch an i nst ruct i on i s proper onlyw hen a du pli ci t ychall eng e i s fi rs trai sed attri al . B ecause F ern an d ez arg u ed d u p li cityp ri o r t o tr ial , h e c lai m s the o n lyap p rop ri ate rem ed ies w ere el ect i on ordi s m i s s al . “W hetheran i ndi ctm enti s dupl i ci t ous i s a ques t i on of l aw s ubj ect t o de novo r evi ew . ” U

ni t ed Stat es v. R oot , 5 8 5 F . 3 d 1 4 5 , 1 5 0 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 9 ).

“ D u p licityis th e jo in in g in a sin g le c o u n t o f tw o o r m o re d istin c t an d se p a ra te offe ns es . ” U

ni t ed Stat es v. Starks , 5 1 5 F .2 d 1 1 2 , 1 1 6 (3 d C ir. 1 9 7 5 ). D u p licityis n o t to be conf us ed w i t h “mul t i pl i ci t y , ” w hi ch i s the cha r gi ng of a s i ngl e off ens e i n s ever al count s t her ebyr i s ki ng m ul t i pl e puni s hm ent s fora s i ngl e cr i m e. 1A C har l es A l an W r i ght e t a l. , Feder al Pr act i ce a nd Pr ocedur e § 142 ( 4th ed. 2010) . T he purpos es of the pr ohi bi t i on agai ns tdupl i ci t ous i ndi ctm ent s i ncl ude: (1 ) a v o id in g th e u n c e rta in tyo f w h e th e r a g e n e ra l v e rd ict o f g u iltyc o n c e a ls a f in d in g o f g u iltya s to o n e c rim e a n d a f in d in g o f n o t g u iltya s to a n o th e r;8

( 2) avoi di ng t he r i s k t hatt he j ur or s m aynothave be en unani m ous as t o any one of the cr i m es char ged; ( 3) as s ur i ng the def endantadequa t e not i ce; ( 4) providi ng t he b asi s for appropri at e sent encing; and (5) prot ect i ng against doubl e j eopar dyi n a s ubs equentpr os ecut i on. R oot , 585 F. 3d at154. “D upl i ci t ous pl eadi ng, how ever , i s notpr es um pt i vel yi nval i d. ” U ni t ed Stat es v. O lm eda , 4 6 1 F .3 d 2 7 1 , 2 8 1 (2 d C ir. 2 0 0 6 ). T h e c h a rg in g o f se p a ra te a c ts in o n e c o u n t is p e rm is s ib le “ if

th o s e a c ts c o u ld b e c h a ra c te ri z e d a s p a rt o f a s in g le c o n tin u in g s c h e m e .” Id . ( quot at i on om i t t ed) . T hi s rul e makes an abunda nce of s ens e i n per

j urycas es w her e the s ame fal s ehood coul d be r epea t ed i n s ever al w ay s . I n s uch ci r cumst ance s , char gi ng eac h s ta te m e n t s e p a ra te ly co u ld le a d to a m u ltip lic ity c h a lle n g e . See, e. g. , U ni t ed Stat es v. C lar r i dge , 811 F. Supp. 697, 705 ( D . D . C . 1992) ( t w o count s of an i ndi ctm ental l egi ng fa lse stat em en ts be fo re S en ate C o m m ittee w ere m u lt ipli cit o u s ev en tho u g h theyw ere r es pons es t o di ffe r entques t i oner s w her e the “s t at ement s w er e gi ven pur s uantt o one oath, th e yw e re m a d e b e f

o re th e sa m e c o m m itt e e o n [ th e sa m e d a y ], an d th e yp e rta in e d to i dent i cal s ubj ectm att er ”) . T hus , cour t s have he l d t hatper j uryi ndi ctm ent s ar e not d u p l i c i t o u s s i mp l yb e c a u s e t h e ys p e c i f ymu l t i p l e s t a t e me n t s d e mo n s t r a t i n g th e s a me f a ls e h o o d . See, e. g. , U

ni t ed Stat es v. B er ar di , 629 F. 2d 723, 729 ( 2d C i r . 1980) ( “[I ] thas l ong been a cce pt ed pr act i ce t o char ge per j urybefor e the gr and j ury , comm i t t ed i n t he cour s e of the s ame appear ance , i n a one c ounti ndi ctm entw i t h eac h fal s e dec l ar at i on s et fo rth in a p arti cu lar spe cifica ti o n . ”); U ni t ed Stat es v. I

s aacs , 4 9 3 F .2 d 1 1 2 4 , 1 1 5 5 (7 th C i r . ) ( “I n per

j ur ycas es . . . w her e one of fens e i s comm i t t ed, al l the fa l s e dec l ar at i onsF e rn a n d e z a lso c laim s th a t th e ju ryin stru c tio n re g a rd in g u n a n im ityim p e rm iss ib ly 2 a m e n d e d th e in d ictm e n t. A f ter th o ro u g h c o n sid e ra tio n o f th is iss u e — w h ich is s u b jec t to the oner ous pl ai n err ors t andar d beca us e Fernandez fai l ed t o r ai s e i tbefor e the D i s t r i ct C our t

— w e fi nd no err or . E ven as s um i ng the i ns t ruct i on cons t i tut ed a c ons t ruct i ve amendm entof the i ndi ctm ent , i tw as noti m perm i s s i bl e bec aus e i tdi d not“br oaden[ ] t he pos s i bl e bas es forconvi ct i on fr om thatw hi ch appe ar ed i n t he i ndi ctm ent . ” U ni t ed Stat es v. McKee , 5 0 6 F .3 d 2 2 5 , 2 2 9 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 7 ) (q u o tatio n o m itt e d ). T h e D istric t C o u rt d id n o t p e rm it th e ju ryto c o n sid e r sta tem e n ts b e y o n d th o se in c lu d e d in th e in d ictm e n t; acc or di ngl y , Fer nandez had ful l not i ce of the cha r ges and s t at ement s agai ns tw hi ch he n e e d e d to d e f

e n d a n d h is F if

th A m e n d m e n t r ig h ts w e re n o t v io la te d . See al s o U ni t ed S ta t e s v . S

y me , 2 7 6 F . 3 d 1 3 1 , 1 4 8 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 2 ) (“A co n stru cti v e a m en d m en t occ u rs w her e a de fenda nti s depr i ved of hi s ‘ s ubs t ant i al r i ghtt o be tr i ed onl yon char ges p rese n ted in an ind ict m en t r eturn ed b ya g ran d jury . ’” (cit ati o n o m itted)). 9 pert ai ni ng t o t hatoffe ns e ca n be cha r ged i n one countw i t houtm aki ng thatcount d u p lic ito u s .” ), cer t . deni ed , 4 1 7 U . S . 9 7 6 (19 7 4 ). A c c o rd in g ly , C o u n t I o f F e rn a n d e z ’s in d ictm e n t, w h ich sp e c if ied m u lti p le fal s ehoods al l r egar di ng w hetherFer nandez s poke w i t h any one aboutthe i ns ur ance res olut i on s pri or t o the vote, w as not dup l i ci t ou s. 2 B . E vi dent i aryR ul i ngs T he pr i m aryfocus of Fernandez ’ s defe ns e attr i al w as t o di s pr ove thathe had “know i ngl y ” l i ed t o t he gr and j ur y . A ccor di ng t o Fer nandez , he had mer el yfor got t en a b o u t th e M a rc h 2 2 p h o n e c a lls b yth e tim e o f h is g ra n d ju rytes tim o n y . O n a p p e a l, Fernandez chal l enges t hr ee i ns t ance s i n w hi ch the D i s t r i ctC our texcl uded evi dence o f f e r e d t o c o r r o b o r a t e F e r n a n d e z ’ s s t a t e o f m i n d d u r i n g h i s g r a n d j u r y t e s t i m o n y. W e r evi ew a tr i al court ’ s deci s i on t o admi torexcl ude evi dence forabus e of d isc re tio n , “a n d su c h d isc re tio n is c o n stru e d e sp e c iallyb ro a d lyin th e c o n tex t o f R u le10

403. ” U n itedS ta tes v . M

a th is , 2 6 4 F . 3 d 3 2 1 , 3 2 6 -27 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 1 ). A d istri ct co u rt ’s d e c isio n to e x c lu d e e v id e n c e u n d e r R u le 4 0 3 c o n stitu tes a n a b u se o f d isc re tio n o n ly w her e i ti s “arbi t r aryori r r at i onal . ” U ni t ed Stat es v. U

ni ver s alR ehab. Ser vs . (

P A) , I nc. , 205 F. 3d 657, 665 ( 3d C i r . 2000) ( en banc ) . I f w e conc l ude thatan evi dent i aryrul i ng c o n s titu te d a n a b u s e o f

d is c re tio n , w e m u s t d e te rm in e w h e th e r t h e e rr o r w a s h a rm le s s . U ni t ed Stat es v. C as oni , 9 5 0 F . 2 d 8 9 3 , 9 0 2 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 1 ). 1. A tt r i al , Fer nandez s oughtt o i ntr oduce a udi ot apes of t el ephone c al l s betw een Sot o, R i vera, and Jackson w hich t oo k p l ace earl i er i n the dayon M arch 22 , 20 07 . In tho se ca ll s, S o to, R ivera , an d Jac k so n d iscu ssed w h ethe r t o cu t Fe rna n d ez in o n the b ri b ery s cheme t o s ecur e hi s vot e aga i ns tt he upcomi ng i ns ur ance r es ol ut i ons . U l t i m at el y , the th re e c o n c lu d e d th a t, i n ste a d o f c u tti n g F e rn a n d e z in , S o to w o u ld c a ll F e rn a n d e z a n d tell hi m t o vot e aga i ns tt he r es ol ut i ons t o s ave the C i t ym oney . I n s eeki ng t o admi tthe t apes in to e v id e n c e , F e rn a n d e z a rg u e d th e yc o rro b o ra ted h is te stim o n yth a t h e h a d n o m o tiv e to m i s l e a d t h e g r a n d j u r y. T he D i s t r i ctC our texcl uded the audi ot apes , fi ndi ng thattheyw er e i r r el evant , and c o n stitu ted im p e rm iss ib le h e a rsa y . T h e C o u rt n o ted th e u n re liab ili tyo f th e sta tem e n ts gi ven the mot i vat i ons of the part i es t o t he conve r s at i on. I tal s o found thatpl ay i ng the t apes w oul d be “a di s t r act i on” bec aus e Fernandez w as notacc us ed of mem ber s hi p i n the br i berycons pi r acyand hi s cas e dea l tw i t h t he “ve r ynarr ow ” per j uryi s s ue, w hi ch the11

C our tw oul d notal l ow t o be “obf us cat ed bybr i ngi ng i n s chemes and cr os s agenda s of other s . ” A pp. at312- 13. U nd er Fede ral R ule of E vidence 4 03 , a D i stri ctC ou rtm ayexclude o t herw i se r el evantevi dence “i f i t s pr obat i ve val ue i s s ubs t ant i al l youtw ei ghed bythe dange rof unfai rpr ej udi ce, confus i on of the i s s ues , orm i s l eadi ng the j ury , orbycons i der at i ons of u n d u e d e l a y , wa s t e o f

t i me , o rn e e d l e s s p r e s e n t a t i o n o f c u mu l a t i v e e v i d e n c e . ” F e d . R. E vi d. 403. T he audi ot apes of the M ar ch 22 t el ephone c al l s betw een Sot o, R i ver a, and J acks on w er e l ar gel yi r r el evantt o t he ca s e. Fer nandez w as notchar ged w i t h par t i ci pat i on i n t he under l y i ng br i berys cheme and the G overnm entconce ded thati thad no evi dence he w as i nvol ved. Fur t herm or e, t hough t he G overnm entr efe r r ed t o Fer nandez as a “f r i end” of M ay orR i ver a i n i t s openi ng s t at ement , i t s theme t hr oughouttr i al w as thatFernandez w as m ot i vat ed t o l i e, notbeca us e he w as a cl os e per s onal fr i end of Ri ver a, butbeca us e i tw as p o lit ica llye x p e d ien t f

o r F e rn a n d e z to c u rryf

a v o r w ith R iv e ra . T h e f a c t th a t R iv e ra , S o to and J acks on cons i der ed and r ej ect ed the i dea of i ncl udi ng Fer nandez i n t hei rs cheme does nott end t o negat e the G overnm ent ’ s theory . T her efor e, the t apes had mi ni m al pr obat i ve val ue. M or eover , t he pot ent i al for“obfus cat i on” fr om the admi s s i on of evi dence reg ard ing the c o rrup ti o n co n sp ir ac yw as h igh , an d the D istri ct C o u rtinstructed the ju rors thattheycoul d notappl ygui l tbyas s oci at i on t o Fer nandez bas ed on the under l y i ng12

ext or t i on cr i m e. A pp. at772. T her efor e, the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s concl us i on thatthe dange r o f c o n f u sio n a n d p re

ju d ice f ro m p layi n g th e a u d io tap e s s u b sta n tiallyo u tw e ig h e d th e ir pr obat i ve val ue w as notan abus e of di s cr et i on. 2. Fernandez nextas s i gns err ort o t he exc l us i on of audi ot apes and tr ans cr i pt s of pr i or C ounci l m eet i ngs dur i ng w hi ch the C ounci l di s cus s ed the i ns ur ance r es ol ut i ons and the need t o s ave the C i t ym oney . T he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s s t at ementthatthe t apes w er e i r r el evant to th e p e rju ryc h a rg e w a s in c o rre c t, as th e yd id ten d to sh o w th a t th e re a so n F e rn a n d e z d id n o t re c a ll th e M a rc h 2 2 p h o n e c a ll w ith S o to w a s b e c a u se it w a s a n “ u n re m a rk a b le d isc u ss io n ” re itera tin g in f o rm a tio n F e rn a n d e z h a d a lre a d ylea rn e d in th e C o u n c il m eet i ngs . C ont r aryt o t he G overnm ent ’ s as s ert i ons , Fernandez di d devel op thi s ar gum ent attri al and i n h i s proffer of t he tapes. N onethel es s , t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s concl us i on thatthe t apes w er e r epet i t i ve of uncont es t ed i nform at i on al r eadypr es ent ed thr ough t he t es t i m onyof G r egoryH i l l , the C i ty ’ s B us i nes s A dm i ni s t r at or , and thr ough Fer nandez ’ s ow n t es t i m ony , w as not im p ro p e r. A p p . at 5 0 9 -1 1 . F e rn a n d e z p ro f f e re d m u lti p le a u d io tap e s o f f u ll C o u n c il m e e tin g s, e a c h tw e n tyto f o rtym in u tes in len g th , an d n u m e ro u s p a g e s o f tra n sc rip ts to c o rr o b o ra te u n d is p u te d te s tim o n y . See A p p . at 4 1 0 , 5 2 3 . T h e C o u rt w a s le g iti m a tely conce rned thats uch evi dence w oul d be a w as t e of t i m e. A pp. at509- 511, 515. T hus , t he c o n c lu sio n th a t an yp ro b a tiv e v a lu e o f th e tap e s w a s s u b sta n tiallyo u tw e ig h e d b yth e irW e al s o r ej ectFer nandez ’ s cl ai m thatthe D i s t r i ctC our terr ed w hen i tperm i t t ed 3 the G overnm entt o ques t i on hi m r egar di ng w hathi s l aw y ert ol d hi m aboutthe s cope of th e g r a n d j u r y i n v e s t i g a t i o n . T h e G o v e r n m e n t ’ s q u e s t i o n s d i d n o tv i o l a t e th e a t t o r n e ycl i entpr i vi l ege be caus e Fernandez r epea t ed onl yw hathi s at t orneyhad l earned fr om t he pr os ecut orand the conve y ance of s uch i nform at i on does notcons t i tut e pr i vi l eged l egal a d v ic e . See In re Sealed C ase , 737 F. 2d 94, 99 ( D . C . C i r . 1984) ( “[W ] hen an a t t orney convey s t o hi s cl i entfac t s acqui r ed fr om ot herper s ons ors our ces , thos e fa ct s ar e not p riv ileg e d .” (q u o tatio n o m itt e d )); s ee al s o R hone- P oul enc Rore rI nc. v. H om e I ndem . C o. , 3 2 F .3 d 8 5 1 , 8 6 2 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 4 ) (u n d e rly in g f a c ts d o n o t b e c o m e p riv ileg e d v ia i ncorpor at i on i n an att or ney - cl i entcomm uni cat i on) . W e al s o concl ude thatFernandez s uffe r ed no harm w hen hi s at t or neyw as pr ecl uded fr om t es t i fy i ng. 13 cumul at i ve ef

fec tw as notan abus e of di s cr et i on, part i cul ar l yw her e the C our tperm i t t ed F e rn a n d e z to s u b m it th e m e e tin g m in u te s a n d a g e n d a s a s a n a lte rn a tiv e , w h ic h h e d id . F e d . R . E v id . 4 0 3 ; s ee A pp. at499- 500, 519, 521, 534, 580- 81. 3 C . J uryI ns t ruct i ons Fernandez as s ert s fourerr or s w i t h r es pectt o t he j uryi ns t ruct i ons . H e ar gues t hat the D i s tr i ctC our terr ed by : ( 1) fai l i ng t o defi ne the t erm “know i ngl y ” w i t h r es pectt o the per j ur ycount ; ( 2) r efus i ng t o gi ve Fernandez ’ s pr opos ed “a m bi gui t y ” i ns t ruct i on; ( 3) i ns truct i ng t he j ur yt hata pr os ecut ori s notobl i gat ed t o gi ve gr and j uryw i t nes s es advanc e not i ce of the s ubj ectm att erof the i nves t i gat i on; and ( 4) i m pr oper l yi ns t ruct i ng the j ur yas t o “mat er i al i t y . ” “W e gene r al l yexer ci s e pl enaryr evi ew i n det erm i nat i ng ‘ w hetherthe j ur yi ns truct i ons s t at ed the pr operl egal s t andar d, ’ and r evi ew the r efus al t o gi ve a part i cul ari ns t ruct i on ort he w or di ng of i ns t ruct i ons forabus e of di s cr et i on. ” U ni t ed Stat es v. F l or es , 4 5 4 F . 3 d 1 4 9 , 1 5 6 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) (cit ati o n o m itted).14

Fernandez ’ s ar gum entw i t h r es pectt o t he C our t ’ s know i ngl ychar ge i s bor der l i ne f riv o lo u s. T h o u g h th e D istric t C o u rt d id n o t d e f in e th e ter m “ k n o w in g ly ” im m e d iate ly f o llo w in g its in stru c tio n c o n c e rn in g th e e lem e n ts o f p e rju ry , itd id d e f

in e th e ter m a f

ter it had s etoutt he el ement s of obs t ruct i on of j us t i ce, A pp. at767- 68, and furt heri ns t ruct ed th e ju ryth a t th e d e f

in iti o n a p p lied w h e re v e r “ k n o w in g ly ” a p p e a re d a m o n g th e e lem e n ts o f e ith e r o f f e n se , A p p . at 8 7 4 . T h e se in stru c tio n s “ f a irlya n d a d e q u a telysu b m it[te d ] to th e ju ry” th e d e f

in itio n o f k n o w in g ly f

o r C o u n t I . U

n itedS ta tes v . T

ra itz , 871 F. 2d 368, 3 8 3 (3d C ir . 1 9 8 9 ). T he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s r efus al t o gi ve Fernandez ’ s ambi gui t yi ns t ruct i on al s o w as not an abus e of di s cr et i on beca us e the C our tchar ged the j urypr oper l yas t o t he el ement s of per j ur yand the bur den of pr oof nec es s aryt o convi ctFernandez . T hi s i ncl uded i ns t ruct i ng the j ur ythatone di d notm ake a know i ng fal s ehood i f the s t at ementw as bas ed on m i s t ake. A pp. at767. Fur t herm or e, Fernandez ’ s pr opos ed i ns t ruct i on i ncorpor at ed the i s s u e o f f u n d a m e n t a l a m b i g u i t y w h i c h i s a q u e s t i o n f o rth e c o u r t , n o tth e j u r y. T he D i s t r i ctC our ti ns t ruct ed the j urythat“[t ] he G overnm enti s underno r equi r ementt o i nform a w i t nes s i n the G r and J uryof the ext entorbr eadth of the G o v e rn m e n t' s in v e stig a tio n . O r to tell h im o f th e e v id e n c e it alre a d yp o ss e ss e s o r th a t it al r eadyhas r egar di ng t he s ubj ectm at t er . ” A pp. at764. T hi s i ns t ruct i on nei t herm i s s t at ed the l aw nordi s cour aged the j ur yfr om cons i der i ng Fer nandez ’ s ar gum entaboutthe ef fec t of the l ack of

i nform at i on on hi s s t at e of mi nd. G i ven the numer ous i m pl i cat i ons m ade by15

th e d e f e n se d u rin g trial th a t th e p ro se c u to r im p ro p e rlyf a iled to p ro v id e F e rn a n d e z w ith advanc e not i ce of

t he s cope of

t he i nves t i gat i on, thi s i ns t ruct i on w as notan abus e of d is c re tio n . See, e. g. , E dw ar ds v. C i t y of P hi l a. , 8 6 0 F . 2 d 5 6 8 , 5 7 5 (3d C ir . 1 9 8 8 ). F in a lly , F e rn a n d e z a ss ig n s e rro r to th e C o u rt’s m a ter ialityin stru c tio n b e c a u se it fai l ed t o s t at e thata mat er i al s t at ementi s one on w hi ch “a r eas onabl e per s on w oul d r el y . ” T h is a rg u m e n t is m e ritles s b e c a u se th e m a ter ialityin stru c tio n th a t th e C o u rt d id pr ovi de— t hat“[a ] s t at ementi s m at er i al i f i thas a t endenc yt o i nfl uence , i m pede or hampert he G r and J ur yfr om pur s ui ng [i t s ] i nves t i gat i on, ” A pp. at763— w as cons i s t ent w ith c o n tr o llin g p re c e d e n t. S e e , e.g ., U n itedS ta tes v . G a u d in , 515 U . S. 506, 509 ( 1995) ( “[C]onvi ct i on under[18 U . S. C . § 1001 fal s e s t at ement s ] r equi r es thatthe s t at ement s be ‘m a ter ial’ to th e G o v e rn m e n t in q u iry. . . [t]h e sta tem e n t m u st h a v e ‘a n a tu ra l ten d e n c yto in f lu e n c e , o r [ b e ] c a p a b le o f in f lu e n c in g , the d e c isio n o f th e d e c isio n m a k in g b o d yto w h ich it i s ad d resse d . ” (c it ati o n o m itted)). D . Sent enci ng C hal l enge Fernandez chal l enges t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s appl i cat i on of a tw o- l evel enhanc ement underU SSG § 3C 1. 1 forobs t ruct i on of j us t i ce. W e exe r ci s e pl enaryr evi ew overthe D istri ct C o u rt ’s i n terpretati o n o f th e G u idelines , an d rev iew it s fin d ing s o f f ac t i n su p p o rt o f a n e n h a n c e m e n t f

o r c le a r e rr o r. U

nited S tates v. W

ise , 5 1 5 F . 3 d 2 0 7 , 2 1 7 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 8 ).16

Fernandez ’ s Pr es ent ence I nves t i gat i on R epor t( PSR ) found the enha ncement appr opr i at e bas ed on hi s t es t i m onyattr i al “thathe had no r ecol l ect i on of the M ar ch 22, 2007 t el ephone c al l w i t h J onathan Sot o. ” A ts ent enci ng, the D i s t r i ctC our tagr eed that F e rn a n d e z h a d p e r

j u r e d h i m s e l f

a ttr i a l : “ [ h ] a v i n g t a k e n th a tp o s i t i o n i n th e G r a n d J u ry, an d fe eli n g that h e w as n o t a w ron g d o er in a ll o f th is co rrup ti o n , as I v iew it , M r. Fernandez coul d notbr i ng hi m s el f t o s t ep aw ayfr om the pos i t i on he had t aken. ” A pp. at 939. B eca us e the D i s t r i ctC our tdi d notfur t herexpl ai n i t s appl i cat i on of § 3C 1. 1, the G overnm enti ni t i at ed the fol l ow i ng excha nge atthe cl os e of the s ent enci ng hear i ng: M R . C H A O : A n d , Y o u r H o n o r, if I ju st m a yc lar if yb e c a u se w ith re sp e c t to the obs t ruct i on enhanc ement , di d t he C our tfi nd bya pr eponder ance that d e f e n d a n t ’ s t e s t i m o n y a tt r i a l c o n s t i tu t e d f a l s e t e s t i m o n y? T H E C O U R T : A b s o l u t e l y. M R . C H A O : C oncerni ng m at er i al m att erw i t h t he w i l l ful i nt entt o pr ovi de f a l s e t e s t i m o n y. T H E C O U R T : Y es , I bel i eve thatthe def endantt ook t he pos i t i on he t ook e a rlyo n a n d c o u ld n o t b rin g h im se lf to w a iv e r [ sic ] f

ro m it. A pp. at945- 46. F e rn a n d e z a rg u e s th a t ap p lica tio n o f th e e n h a n c e m e n t co n stitu ted im p ro p e r d o u b le c o u n tin g b e c a u se h is u n d e rly in g o f f e n se w a s f

o r p e rju rya n d th e G o v e rn m e n t f a iled to s h o w a “ s ig n if

ic a n t f u rt h e r o b s tru c tio n ” a s re q u ir e d b yth e A p p lic a tio n N o te s to § 3 C 1 .1 . See U SSG § 3C 1. 1 cmt . n. 7. S e c tio n 3 C 1 .1 p ro v id e s f o r a tw o -le v e l en h a n c e m e n t:17

If (A ) th e d e f

e n d a n t w ill f

u llyo b stru c ted o r im p e d e d , o r a ttem p ted to obs t ructori m pede, t he admi ni s t r at i on of j us t i ce w i t h r es pectt o t he i nves t i gat i on, pr os ecut i on, ors ent enci ng of the i ns t antoffe ns e of c o n v i c t i o n , a n d ( B ) t h e o b s t ru c t i v e c o n d u c tr e l a t e d t o ( i ) th e d e f e n d a n t 's o f f e n s e o f c o n v ic tio n a n d a n yre le v a n t c o n d u c t . . . . U S S G § 3 C 1 . 1 . A p p li ca ti o n N o te 7 c au ti o n s tha t i f th e o ff en se o f c o n v ict ion is pe rj u ry ( among ot hercr i m es ) , t hen the enha ncements houl d notbe appl i ed “e xcepti f a s i gni fi cant fur therobs t ruct i on occurr ed dur i ng the i nves t i gat i on, pr os ecut i on, ors ent enci ng of the obs truct i on offe ns e i t s el f, ” and l i s t s thr eat eni ng a w i t nes s as an exa m pl e of “ s i gni fi cant fur therobs t ruct i on. ” U SSG § 3C 1. 1 cmt . n. 7. W e have hel d t hatt he comm i s s i on of per j uryattr i al w arr ant s appl i cat i on of the o b s tru c tio n o f

ju s tic e e n h a n c e m e n t. U n itedS ta tes v . F io re lli , 1 3 3 F . 3 d 2 1 8 , 2 2 1 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 8 ); see al

so U SSG § 3C 1. 1 cmt . n. 4( b) ( i ncl udi ng “comm i t t i ng . . . per j ury ” on “l i s tof e x a mp l e s o f

t h e t yp e s o f

c o n d u c tt o wh i c h th i s e n h a n c e me n ta p p l i e s ” ) . M o r e o v e r , we have r ej ect ed the ar gum entt hatper j ur i ous s t at ement s attr i al m us tcaus e the governm ent s o m e a d d itio n a l b u rd e n in o rd e r t o s u p p o rt a § 3 C 1 .1 e n h a n c e m e n t. S e e F io re lli , 133 F . 3 d a t2 2 3 ( h o l d i n g t h a tp e r j u r yn e e d n o tb e “ s o f

a rr e a c h i n g a s t o i mp o s e s o me i ncr ement al bur dens on t he governm ent ” t o cons t i tut e obs t ruct i on under§ 3C 1. 1 ( i nt ernal q u o tatio n m a rk s o m itt e d )); s ee al s o U ni t ed Stat es v. D unnigan , 507 U . S. 87, 93 ( 1993) (pr ecede nts requi ri ng “som e great er desi gn t o int erfer e w i t h judi ci al proceed i ng s . . . arose in th e c o n tex t o f

in terp re tin g e a rlyv e rsio n s o f th e f e d e ra l cr im in a l co n tem p t sta tu te” n o t § 3C 1. 1) . W hi l e thes e ca s es deal tw i t h under l y i ng convi ct i ons forcr i m es w hi ch di d not18

tr i ggerA ppl i cat i on N ot e 7, t heyar e nonethel es s i ns t ruct i ve thatper j uryattr i al cons t i tut es obs truct i on of j us t i ce unde r§ 3C 1. 1. L i ke the C our tof A ppeal s forthe D i s t r i ctof C ol um bi a C i r cui t , “[w ] e ar e r el uct ant t o hol d thatN ot e 7 gi ves a def endantl i cens e t o per

j ur e [hi m s el f] i n a cr i m i nal pr ocee di ng i n or dert o avoi d enhanc ed puni s hm entfor , of al l thi ngs , per j ury . ” U ni t ed Stat es v. McC oy , 316 F. 3d 287, 289 ( D . C . C i r . 2003) ( r ej ect i ng cont ent i on that“[s ] i m pl yr epea t i ng pr eci s el yt he s ame st at ement s t hatw er e the s ubj ectof per j urychar ges i s notthe s or tof

‘ s i g n i f i c a n tf u r t h e ro b s t ru c t i o n ’ t h a tc a n j u s t i f y a n e x c e p t i o n t o A p p l i c a t i o n N o t e 7 's gener al rul e aga i ns tappl y i ng obs t ruct i on enhanc ement s t o per j uryconvi ct i ons ” ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks om i t t ed) ) . T hus , Fer nandez ’ s per j uryattr i al cons t i tut es a “s i gni fi cant fu rth er o b stru cti o n ” d u ri n g the p rose cu ti o n o f h is pe rj u ryb ef o re the g ran d jury . C o n tr ary t o Fer nandez ’ s ar gum ent s , t hi s does notcons t i tut e “doubl e count i ng. ” Fernandez w as co n v ict ed o f p erjuryb ef o re the g ran d jury , an d the e n h an ce m en t w as b ase d o n h is pe rj u ry at tri al. A s n o ted in the P S R , thes e w ere “se p ara te an d d ist inct” ins tanc es o f ly ing ; th ere is n o f re e p a ss f

o r c o n sis ten t p e rju ry . T h e re f o re , the e n h a n c e m e n t w a s w a rra n ted in th is cas e. F e rn a n d e z a lso a ss ig n s e rro r to th e D istric t C o u rt’s f a ilu re to m a k e sp e c if

ic fin d ing s in su p p o rto f th e e n h an ce m en t. W h il e itis true that the D istri ct C o u rt ’s di s cus s i on of the el ement s of per j uryw as l es s than i deal ( as evi dence d bythe G overnm ent ’ s at t empt t o s hor e up the C our t ’ s fi ndi ngs atthe end of the s ent enci ng19

h e a rin g ), th is is n o t a b a sis f o r v a c a tin g a p p lica tio n o f th e e n h a n c e m e n t w h e re it i s s uppor t ed byt he r ecor d and j ur y ’ s ver di ct . A s w e s t at ed i n U ni t ed Stat es v. B oggi : [ W ]e stre ss th a t itis p re f e ra b le f o r a d istric t co u rt to sp e c if ica llysta te its f in d in g s a s to th e e lem e n ts o f p e rju ryo n th e re c o rd w h e n a p p ly in g th is enhanc ement . H ow ever , w her e, as her e, the r ecor d es t abl i s hes thatthe di s tr i ctcourt ’ s appl i cat i on of the enha ncementnece s s ar i l yi ncl uded a fi ndi ng as t o t he el ement s of per j ury , and thos e fi ndi ngs ar e s uppor t ed by th e re c o rd , w e w ill n o t re m a n d m e re lyb e c a u se th e d istric t co u rt f a iled to engage i n a r i tual i s t i c exe r ci s e and s t at e the obvi ous forthe r ecor d. 7 4 F . 3 d 4 7 0 , 4 7 9 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 6 ). M or eover , i n U

ni t ed Stat es v. G r i cco , w e uphel d a § 3C 1. 1 enhanc ementbas ed on p erjuryev en tho u g h the d istri ct co u rtd id n o t spe cifica ll yiden ti fyw h ich s tat em en ts w ere per j ur i ous , obs ervi ng onl yt hatG r i cco “ t es t i fi ed fa l s el yr egar di ng m at er i al m att erdur i ng trial.” 2 7 7 F .3 d 3 3 9 , 3 6 2 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 2 ). W e a f f irm e d a p p lica tio n o f

th e e n h a n c e m e n t in G r i cco , des pi t e the l ack of s peci fi c fi ndi ngs bythe s ent enci ng court , beca us e i tw as “obvi ous ” fr om t he r ecor d “that[the def endant s ] - bot h of w hom deni ed anypart i ci pat i on i n embezzl i ng t he moneyfr om t he ai rpor tand i n underr epor t i ng thei ri ncome- comm i t t ed per j ur y . ” Id . T he s ame i s t rue her e. A tt r i al , Fernandez r epea t edl yexpl ai ned thatthe r eas on he d en ied th e e x ist en ce o f th e M arc h 2 2 , 2 0 0 7 p h o n e c all s w h en an sw ering q u esti o n s b ef o re th e g ra n d ju ry w a s b e c a u s e h e d id n o t r e m e m b e r t h e c a lls , s e e , e .g ., A pp. at563- 567; he a l s o a s s e r t e d , d u r i n g h i s t r i a l t e s t i m o n y, th a th e t e s t i f i e d tru t h f u l l y b e f o r e th e g r a n d j u r y, A pp. at543, 604- 05. T he ver aci t yof thes e s t at ement s w as nece s s ar i l yr ej ect ed bythe20

jury ’s ve rdict, fin d ing that F ern an d ez w il lfu ll ym ad e f alse statem en ts t o the g ran d jury . In lig h t o f th e re c o rd , itw a s n o t er ro r f o r th e D istric t C o u rt to c o n c lu d e th a t th e se sta tem e n ts cons t i tut ed w i l l ful , m at er i al fal s ehoods w arr ant i ng an enha ncementunder§ 3C 1. 1. III . Fort he for egoi ng r eas ons , w e w i l l aff i r m Fernandez ’ s j udgm entof convi ct i on and s ent ence .