FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT N ove m be r 8, 2007 T HOM AS K. KAHN CL E RK [ DO NO T 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. 07- 12251 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 06 -001 06 -C R -1-1 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 T Y R U S L A M O N T A D D I 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 o rth e S o u th e rn D is tr ic t o f G e o r g ia

_________________________ ( N ove m b e r 8, 2007) B efo re B IR C H , D U B IN A an d K R A V IT C H , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: T yrus L am on tA dd i son app ea l s hi s 60-m on th sent ence for posse ss i on of a2

f i r e a rm a n d a mmu n i t i o n b y ac o n v i c t e d f e l o n , i n v i o l a t i o n o f

1 8 U . S. C. § 922( g) ( 1) . A ddi s on a r gue s tha tthe di s tr i c tc our t ’ s appl i c a t i on of a n obs truc t i onof-j ust i ce enhancem ent , pu rs uantt o U . S . S . G . § 3 C 1. 1, and the deni al of an ac ce pt ance -of- re spon si bi l i ty r educt i on , pu rs uantt o U . S . S . G . § 3 E 1. 1, (1) vi ol at ed hi s F i f th A m e ndm e ntpr i vi l e ge a ga i ns ts e l f - i nc r i m i na t i on by e f

f e c t i ve l y r e qui r i ng h im to a d m it h is g u ilt f

o ra n o th e rc r im e a n d ( 2 ) v io la te d h is F o u r te e n th A m e ndm e ntr i ghtt o due pr oc e s s by e f f e c t i ve l y puni s hi ng hi m f orac r i m e w i thout a f f or di ng the pr oc e dur a l s a f e gua r ds of

i ndi c tm e nt , a rr a i gnm e nt , ortr i a l . F orthe r e a s o n s d i s c u s s e d b e l o w , w e a f f i rm. A tA ddi s on’ s c ha nge - of - pl e ahe a r i ng, the gove rnm e ntpr of f e r e d the f ol l ow i ng f

a c t s . F e de r a l of

f i c i a l s a rr e s t e d A ddi s on on the f i r e a rm pos s e s s i on c h a r g e a f te rs ta te o f

f ic ia ls n o tif

ie d th e m th a t A d d is o n h a d th r e a te n e d a1 7 - y e a r - o ld g irl w ith a f

irea rm an d th at state p o li ce h ad fo u n d a lo ad ed fire ar m in A d d iso n ’s c a rw he n the y s t oppe d hi m t o i nve s t i ga t e the gi r l ’ s r e por t . I n r e s pons e t o the gove rnm e nt ’ s pr of

f e r e d f a c t s , A ddi s on a dm i tt e d tha the w a s ac onvi c t e d f e l on a nd ha d pos s e s s e d af

i r e a rm a nd a m m uni t i on, buts t a t e d tha the ha d notpoi nt e d the f ir e a rm a t, a n d d id n o t k n o w , th e 1 7 - y e a r - o ld g ir l. In prepari ng a pre se nt ence i nv es t i gat i on re po rt , the prob at i on offi ce r app l i ed a2 - le v e l o b s tru c tio n - o f - ju s tic e e n h a n c e m e n t, p u r s u a n t to § 3 C 1 .1 , a n d d e c lin e d toThe probation officer also had a

pplied a 4-level enha

ncement, pursuant to U.S.S.G. 1 § 2K2.1(b)( 6), bec ause A ddison possessed the fire arm in conne ction with committi ngthe fe lony of fens eof ag gra vate d a ssa

ult . It isno ta

bletha t A ddiso n did not obje c t tore c e ivingthi s enhanc ement bef

ore thedistrict court, nor doe s he raise it on appeal. It also is notable that Addison did not argue that he did not commit perjury at his chang e-of

-plea hearing be forethe district court or on a

ppeal. 3 appl y a2- l e ve l a c c e pt a nc e - of - r e s pons i bi l i ty r e duc t i on, pur s ua ntt o § 3E 1. 1( a ) , on the gr ounds tha tA ddi s on ha d pe r j ur e d hi m s e l f

a thi s c ha nge - of

- pl e ahe a r i ng by f a l s e l y de ny i ng hi s c onduc tt ow a r d the 17- y e a r - ol d gi r l . I n r e s pons e , A ddi s on a r g u e d th a t th e p r o b a tio n o f f ic e r ’s p o s itio n e f

f e c tiv e ly r e q u ir e d h im to w a iv e h is ri gh tagai nstse l f- i ncri m i nat i on and adm i ta c ri m e, nam el y, aggravat ed as saul t , that he deni ed com m i tt i ng and w i th w hi ch he had n otbeen charged. T he di stri ctcourt 1 no t i fi ed A dd i son and the go vernm entthatthey s ho ul d b e pre pare d t o o ff erfurther e v id e n c e a t s e n te n c in g a s to A d d is o n ’s a lle g e d c o n d u c t to w a r d th e g ir l. A cc ordi ng l y, atthe se nt enci ng hear i ng , the 17 -y ea r- ol d g i rl and h erm other t es t i fi ed. T he gi rl st at ed thatshe knew A dd i son b ec ause hi s brother w as the fa ther of he rs i s t e r ’ s c hi l d. S he a l s o s t a t e d tha ts he ha d m e tA ddi s on w he n s he w a s 13, w hen h e had as ked h erfor herph on e num ber a nd she had re fuse d. S he then e x p la in e d th a t, a s s h e w a s w a lk in g h o m e o n e d a y , A d d is o n ap p r o a c h e d h e rin h is c a ra n d a c c u s e d h e ro f

te llin g h is th e n - g ir lf

r ie n d th a t A d d is o n a n d s h e h a d d a te d . S h e e x p la in e d th a t A d d is o n c a lle d h e r“th e B w o r d ,” tr ie d to ru n o v e rh e rw ith h is c a r , a nd the n pul l e d outaf i r e a rm a nd s a i d “ I ’ l l ki l l y ou, I ’ l l ki l l y ou. ” A ddi s on4

cr oss- exam i ned the 17 -y ea r- ol d g i rl on thi s t es t i m on y. T he gi rl ’ s m other s t at ed that , af t erher daugh t erre po rt ed the i nci dentt o h er , she f ol l ow ed A dd i son and sa w hi m exi thi s c arw i th a fi re arm . B as ed on thi s t es t i m on y the di stri ctcourtadop t ed th e p ro b at i o n o ffi cer’s cal cu l at i o n s. W e r e vi e w que s t i ons of c ons t i tut i ona l l a w de novo. U ni t e d S t a t e s v. C hau, 4 2 6 F .3 d 1 3 1 8 , 1 3 2 1 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) . A . F i f th A m e ndm e nt T he F i f th A m e ndm e ntt o the U ni t e d S t a t e s C ons t i tut i on pr ovi de s tha t“ no pers on . . . shal l be com pel l ed i n any cr i m i nal ca se t o b e aw i tness agai nsthi m se l f. ” U . S . C ons t . a m e nd. V . T he S upr e m e C our tha s he l d, how e ve r , tha t“ ne i the rthe t extno r the spi ri tof the F i fth A m endm entconfer s apri vi l ege t o l i e” and that

“ [p] roper i nv ocat i on of the F i fth A m endm entpri vi l ege a gai nstcom pu l sory se l f- i ncri m i nat i on al l ow s aw i tness t o rem ai n si l ent , bu tno tt o sw ea r f al se l y. ” B r oga n v. U ni t e d S t a t e s , 522 U . S . 398, 404, 118 S . C t . 805, 810, 139 L . E d. 2d 830 ( 1 9 9 8 ) ( q u o ta tio n o m itte d ) . P ursuantt o § 3C 1. 1, a di stri ctcourtm ayappl y atw o-l evel ob struct i on -ofju s tic e e n h a n c e m e n t to ad e f e n d a n t’s b a s e o f

f e n s e le v e l if

th e d e f e n d a n t w illf

u lly obs truc t s the i nve s t i ga t i on, pr os e c ut i on, ors e nt e nc i ng of hi s of f e ns e of c onvi c t i on, in am a n n e rr e la te d to h is o f f e n s e o f c o n v ic tio n , r e le v a n t c o n d u c t, o rac lo s e ly5

r e l a t e d of

f e ns e . T he c om m e nt a ry t o § 3C 1. 1 pr ovi de s anon- e xhaus t i ve l i s tof c onduc tt o w hi c h the e nha nc e m e ntm i ghtappl y , i nc l udi ng pe r j ury a nd “ pr ovi di ng m a t e r i a l l y f

a l s e i nf orm a t i on t o aj udge orm a gi s tr a t e . ” U . S . S . G . § 3C 1. 1, c om m e nt . ( n. 4( b) a nd ( f ) ) . T he c om m e nt a ry t o § 3C 1. 1 c aut i ons , how e ve r , tha tthe prov i si on “ i s noti nt ended t o p un i sh a def endantfor the exerc i se of a c on st i tut i on al r i ght ” a nd, the r e f

or e , doe s notappl y t o “ [ a ] de f e nda nt ’ s de ni a l of

gui l t( othe rtha n a de ni a l of gui l tunde roa th tha tc ons t i tut e s pe r j ury ) , r e f us a l t o a dm i tgui l torpr ovi de i n f o rm a t i o n t o ap r o b a t i o n o f f i c e r , o rr e f

u s a l t o e n t e rap l e ao f

g u i l ty . ” U. S . S . G. § 3 C 1 .1 , c o m m e n t. ( n .2 ) . H o w e v e r , th e r e is n o c o n s titu tio n a l r ig h t to c o m m it p e r ju ry , a n d w h e n s e n te n c in g ad e f e n d a n t, th e c o u r t c o n s titu tio n a lly m a y ta k e in to ac coun ti t s c on cl usi on thatthe defendantcom m i tt ed perj ury a ttri al . U ni t ed S t at es v. G ra ys on , 43 8 U . S . 41 , 54 -55, 98 S . C t . 26 10 , 26 17 -18, 57 L . E d. 2d 58 2 (19 78 ). P u rsu an tt o § 3 E 1 . 1 (a), a d i stri ctco u rtcan red u ce a d efen d an t ’ s b ase o ffen se l e ve l by tw o l e ve l s i f

the de f e nda ntde m ons tr a t e s a c c e pt a nc e of r e s pons i bi l i ty f

or hi s off ense . In U ni t ed S t at es v. H enry , 88 3 F . 2d 10 10 , 10 11 -12 (11 th C i r. 19 89 ), th is c o u r t h e ld th a t § 3 E 1 .1 w a s n o t u n c o n s titu tio n a l w ith r e g a r d to th e F if th A m e ndm e ntr i ghta ga i ns ts e l f - i nc r i m i na t i on be c aus e the pr ovi s i on w a s not in te n d e d to p u n is h d e f

e n d a n ts . A ft era tho roug h revi ew of the re cord, w e c on cl ud e thatthe di stri ctcourt6

prop er l y s ent ence d A dd i son. F i rs t , the appl i ca t i on of an ob struct i on -of- j ust i ce enhancem entdi d n otvi ol at e A dd i son’ s pri vi l ege a gai nstse l f- i ncri m i nat i on because A ddi s on’ s s t a t e m e nt s a tthe c ha nge - of - pl e ahe a r i ng c ons t i tut e d af a l s e de ni a l of g u ilt u n d e ro a th , r a th e rth a n am e r e r e f u s a l to a d m it g u ilt. S e e U .S .S .G . § 3 C 1 .1 c om m e nt . ( n. 2) . M or e ove r , A ddi s on ha d no r i ghtt o l i e unde roa th, a nd the s e nt e nc i ng c our tpr ope r l y c ons i de r e d s uc h pe r j ury a ts e nt e nc i ng. S e e G r a y s on, 438 U . S . a t54- 55. S e c o n d , th e r e f

u s a l to ap p ly a n a c c e p ta n c e - o f - r e s p o n s ib ility r e d u c tio n d id n o tv i o l at e A d d i so n ’ s p ri v i l eg e ag ai n stsel f-i n cri m i n at i o n b ecau se i td i d n o ti m p o se f u r th e rp u n is h m e n t. S e e H e n ry , 8 8 3 F .2 d a t 1 0 1 1 - 1 2 . B . F our t e e nth A m e ndm e nt T he D ue P r oc e s s C l aus e pr ot e c t s a ga i ns tde pr i va t i ons of “ l i f e , l i be r ty , or p ro p erty w i th o u td u e p ro cess o f l aw . ” U . S . C o n st . X IV . S p eci fi cal l y, “ d u e p ro cess a s s u r e s th e d e f

e n d a n t h e w ill b e g iv e n a d e q u a te n o tic e a n d a n o p p o r tu n ity to c ont e s tthe f

a c t s r e l i e d upon t o s uppor thi s c r i m i na l pe na l ty . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. S att er fi el d, 74 3 F . 2d 82 7, 84 0 (11 th C i r. 19 84 ). H e r e , w e c o n c lu d e th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t d id n o t v io la te A d d is o n ’s r ig h t to due pr oc e s s . T he di s tr i c tc ourtputboth A ddi s on a nd gove rnm e nton not i c e of the ne e d f orf ur the re vi de nc e r e ga r di ng the gi r l ’ s c ont e nt i ons , ga ve A ddi s on the7

oppor tuni ty t o c r os s - e xa m i ne he ra nd he rm othe r , a nd ga ve A ddi s on the oppor tuni ty t o pr e s e nthi s ow n e vi de nc e r e ga r di ng the i nc i de nt . T hus , the r e w a s no const i tut i on al error. F o rth e f o r e g o in g r e a s o n s , w e A F F I R M .