### The Honorable Charles R. Wolle, Chief Judge, United States 1 

### District Court for the Southern District of Iowa. ___________ No. 95-4250

___________ Blanche Elizabeth Dyer, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Southern District of Iowa United States of America, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: May 24, 1996 Filed: June 4, 1996

___________ Before McMILLIAN, WOLLMAN and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

___________
PER CURIAM.
Blanche Elizabeth Dyer appeals from the final judgment of th e Distr ict Court for the Southern District of Iowa denying her third 2 8 1 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate her sentence. For the reasons discusse d below, we affirm.
Dyer was convicted of sixteen counts of drug trafficking offenses
. At sentencing, over Dyer's objection, the district court imposed a two

level enhancement for obstruction of justice pur suant to U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1. based o n Dyer's perjured trial testimony that her husband and anothe r codefendant had no knowledge of the drug transac tions. The district court found Dyer "testif[ied] both before the jury and before this Court strictl y to use testimony to her own benefit, if possible , and not to enlighten the jury or the

### -2-

Court on what the facts are," and that she "lie[d] on the witness stand, intenti onally trying to use the opportunity to testify to mislead th e Court." The district court then sentenced Dyer to 230 months imprisonment
.

Dyer appealed the obstruction-of-justice enhancement. This court , affirmi ng Dyer's sentence, concluded the district court's findings o f perjury were not clea rly erroneous. United States v. Dyer , 910 F.2d 530, 533 (8th Cir.), cert. denied , 498 U.S. 907 (1990). This court als o aff irmed the subsequent denials of Dyer's first and second section 225 5 motions
. Dyer v. United States , 23 F.3d 1424 (8th Cir. 1994); id. , 97 2 F.2d 353 (8th Cir. 1992) (Table).

In th is third section 2255 motion, Dyer alleged that the distric t court failed to make independent findings necessary to establish an y perjury to support the obstruction-of-justice enhancement as required by United Sta tes v. Dunnigan , 507 U.S. 87, 95-96 (1993). The governmen t argued that Dyer's section 2255 motion constituted an abuse of the writ an d tha t the district court's findings met the requirements of Dunnigan an d Eighth Circuit precedent.
The district court addressed the merits and concluded that th e evi dence had persuaded it beyond a reasonable doubt that Dyer testifie d falsely at trial and at sentencing, that she knew when she testified that her testimony was false, and that she knew her testimony would cause the government more diffi culty in proving her husband's guilt. Thus, because Dyer committed perjury that obstructed justice and the enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1 was proper, the district court denied Dyer's motion t o vacate. Although Dyer's third section 2255 m otion may constitute an abuse of the writ, we address the merits because the district court

### -3-

did so. See Rodrigue z v. United States , 17 F.3d 225, 226 (8th Cir. 1994) (per curiam).

In United States v. Dunnigan , 507 U.S. at 95, the Supreme Cour t concluded that "if a defendant objects to a sent ence enhancement resulting fromher trial testimony, a district court must review the evidence an d make independent findings necessary to establish a willful impediment to or obstruction of justice, or an attempt to do t he same, under the perjury defi nition." See 18 U.S.C. § 1621 (perjury requires false testimon y concer ning a material matter with willful intent to provide fals e testimony, rather than from confusion, mistake or faulty memory).

We conclude that the district court's findings encompassed all th e factual predicates for a perjury finding and wer e sufficiently specific to support the enhancement. See United States v. Dunnigan , 507 U.S. at 93-94 ; United States v. Turk , 21 F.3d 309, 313 (8th Cir. 1994) (statement judge examined defendant's testimony and was convinced she committed perjury by denying her involvement was sufficiently specific finding). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.