FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V EN T H C IR C U IT OCTOB ER 5, 2007 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK

Honora ble Will iam H. Albritton, I I I , United States District J udg e for the Middle District * of Alaba ma, sitting by

desig nation. [DO N OT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___ N o. 06- 1606 6

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Docket N o. 06-60127-CR-CMA UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Plaintiff-Appellee, ve rs us JESUS FRANCIS CO FRIAS , D ef en dant- Appe llant.

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

of F lor ida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (O ct ob er 5, 200 7)
Before AN DE RSO N and PRYO R, Circuit Judges, and AL BRIT TO N, District * Judg e.2

PE R CU RIA M: Appe llant J es us F ranc isc o F ri as appe al s hi s c onvi ct ion s and s en te nc e of 147 m on th s i m

pr is on m en t fo r co ns pi racy to c omm itHob bs Act ro bb ery, 18 U.S.C. § 19 51 ; ca rry in g afir earm

in rel at io n t o acri m e o f vi ol en ce, 1 8 U.S.C. § 9 2 4 ( c ) ( 1 ) ( A ) ( i i ) ; an dp o s s e s s i n g af i r e arm af t e r h a v i n g b e e nc o n v i c t e do f af e l o n y, 18 U.S.C. § 9 22 (g )(1 ). Frias argues that (1) there w as an im perm issib ly

suggest ive in-court identification of him

at trial; ( 2) evidence pertaining to un charged offe nses was erroneously

adm itted in vi olation of the Feder al Rules of E vidence, ( 3) there w as insufficient evidence to sus tain his conv ictions, and (4) the district court err ed w he n it appl ie d ase nte nc ing e nhanc em en t f or obs tr uc tio n of j ust ic e. W e dis cu ss each ar gum ent in turn, and aff irm the conviction s and sentence. Ade te rm inatio n th at

an id en tif

ic at ionpr oc ed

ur e w as not

im pe rm iss ibl y sugg es tiv e is r ev ie w ed

f or c le ar e rr or . U nit ed

S tate s v. D ia z, 248 F . 3d 1 065, 110 3 (1 1thCi r. 200 1) . Asug ge sti ve ide nti fi catio n c an , und er the tot al ity

of the ci rc um stanc es , non ethe le ss b e re lia ble . I d. T he vic tim -w itn es s whose in- co urt i de nti fi catio n F ri as c ha lle nge s a lso ide nti fi ed F ri as dur ing apho tog ra

phi c lin e- up b ef

or e tr ia l. F ri as c ha lle nge s on ly3

the in-court identification as bein g im perm issib ly

suggest ive. T he district court did not c le ar ly e rr in adm itt ing the in- co urt i de nti fi catio n. F urthe rm or e, the inco urt i de nti fi catio n w as r el ia ble be ca use the pr e- tr ia l i de nti fi catio n “ en sur ed the re lia bil ity of the . . . in- co urt i de nti fi catio n. ” Co de v. Mo ntg om er y , 725 F . 2d 1316 , 1320 (11th Cir. 1984). T he U nit ed

S tate s a lso intro duc ed

a t tri al e vid en ce of

ase parate the ft

of guns that preceded the char ged condu ct, and of a separate attem pted arm ed robbery that followed the charged c ondu ct. Frias argues that this evid ence w as in ad m is si bl e u nd er Ru le 40 4( b) of t he Fed eral Ru le s o f Evi de nc e. The a dm issio n of extrinsic crim es evidence under Rule 404(b) is review ed fo r anabuse of

dis cr et ion . U nit ed

S tate s v. Ram ir ez , 426 F . 3d 1 344, 135 4 ( 11th Cir. 2005 ). U nder Rule 404(b), e vidence m ust be relevant to an issue oth er than the de fe ndant' s c hara ct er , the pr obativ e va lue of the e vid en ce m

ust not be subs tanti al ly

outw ei ghe d by

und ue pr ej udi ce , and the re m ust be suf fi ci en t pr oof

so that a j ur y c oul d f ind that the de fe ndant c om

m itt ed the unc harg ed

m isc ondu ct . I d. The e vidence of the uncharged offenses w hich preceded and which followe d the conduct charged in thi s case w as probative of Frias’ intent and id entity , issues co nte ste d a t tri al , be ca

use , a m ong oth er

r ea sons , it

c onc er ne d w ea pons inv olv ed

in al l thr ee of

fe nse s. T he re a lso w as suf fi ci en t e vid en ce that the de fe ndantFr ias also re fer s to Rule 403 in his brief. T o the extent he has cha lleng ed the 1 admissibili ty

of the e vidence pursuant to Rule 403 in addition to Rul e 404(b) , there has bee n an insufficient showingof pre judice under

Rule 403. 4 co m m itt ed the unc harg ed

c ondu ct , and the re ha s be enan in suf fi ci en t sh ow ing of undu e pr ej udi ce . T he re fo re , the re w as no a buse of dis cr et ionin the a dm iss ionof the evidence of the uncharged offenses pursuant to Rule 404 (b). 1 Fr ia s c ha lle nge s th e suf

fi ci en cy of the e vid en ce to se rv e as aba sis f or his co nvi ct ion s, arg uin g th at

his a lib i w as sup porte d by tr ustw orthy

w itn es se s, w hil e the governm ent witnesses who identified him as being part of the charged conduct ga ve co nf us in g a ndin co ns is te ntacco un ts . T he suf fi ci en cy of the e vid en ce sup portin g ac ri m ina l c onvi ct ionis a que sti on o f law , r ev ie w ed de nov o. U nit ed

S tate s v. D ia z, 248 F . 3d 1 065, 108 4 (1 1thCi r. 200 1) . C re dib ili ty de te rm inatio ns are w ith in the e xc lus ive pr ovi nc e of th e jury. See Un it edSta te s v . Cal de ro n, 1 27 F.3d13 14 , 13 25 (11 th Cir . 19 97 ). Unless testim ony

is incredible as a m atter of law, that is, unbelievable on its fac e, th is co ur t m

us t ac cep t t he cred ib il it y

de te rm in at io n b y

th e jury. Id . Ne ither the nature of the governm ent witnesses’ testim ony in this case, Fr ia s’ s te sti m ony , nor

the te sti m ony

of his a lib i w itn es se s r en de re d th e te sti m ony of the governm ent witnesses regar ding Frias’ s participation in the crim es incredible as a m atter of law. Base d upo n de novo reviewof the rec ord, the court5

co nc lud es the re w as suf

fi ci en t e vid en ce upo n whic h to ba se F ri as ’ s c onvi ct ion s. Finally , F rias ar gues that the appl ication of a two-le vel obstructio n of j ustice enhancem ent in the calculation of his s entence w as im proper because it w as based on h is o w n te sti m ony , w hic h he ha d ac onst itutio na l r igh t t o pr ovi de , and b ec au se hi s al ib i was co rro bo rat edby sev eral ot he r wit ne ss es . Whe n adi st ric t co ur t i m

po se s an en ha nc em en t fo r ob st ru ct io n o f jus ti ce, we re vie wthe c ourt’ s f

ac tua l f ind ing s f or c le ar e rr or and r ev ie wde nov o th e ap pli catio n of

the se nte nc ing gui de lin es to the f ac ts. U nit ed

S tate s v. U sc ink si, 369 F.3d 124 3, 1246 (11th Cir. 2004 ). “ It is we ll establish ed that a cr im inal defendant’ s right to testi fy does not in clude the right to comm it perj ury .” L aC hanc e v. E ri ck son, 522 U . S. 262 , 266 , 118 S . Ct . 753 , 756 ( 1998 ). T he district court did n ot clearly err in finding that Frias had deliberate ly testified fa lse ly , so tha t a

tw o- le ve l e nhanc em en t f or obs tr uc tio n of j ust ic e w as appr opr iate unde r the se nte nc ing gui de lin es . S ee U . S. S. G . § 3C 1. 1. For the fore goin g reasons, Fr ias’ s convictio ns and sentence are AF FIRMED .