FILED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V EN T HC IR C U IT FEB RUARY 19, 2008 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ 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- 13184 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 06 -002 02 -C R -W -N 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 E U G E N E L . C L E C K L E R , 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 M i d d l e D i s tr i c to f A l a b a ma

_________________________ ( F e b r u ar y 19, 2008) B efo re C A R N E S , B A R K E T T an d H U L L , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: A f t e ra j ur y tr i a l , E uge ne C l e c kl e rappe a l s hi s c onvi c t i ons a nd s e nt e nc e s f orWhere a witness’s credibility

is at issue, the g overnme nt’s obligation under B rady 1 includes the disclosureof “e videnceof any understandingor agree ment as to a future prosec ution” of such witness f or impeac hment purposes. Gig lio, 405 U.S. at 154-55, 92 S. Ct . at 766 (citingBrady

v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87, 83 S. Ct . 1194, 1196-97 (1963) ). We reviewfor a

n abuse of

discretion the district cour t’s denial of a

motion for new trial based on a

claim that the g overnme nt failed to disclose mate rial evide nce. United States v. Brown, 441 F.3d 1330, 1350 ( 11th Cir. 2006), cer t. denied, 127 S. Ct. 1149 (2007). 2 c ons pi r a c y t o de f

r a ud the U ni t e d S t a t e s , i n vi ol a t i on of 18 U . S . C . §§ 371 a nd 2, and for corruptor forc i bl e i nt er fe re nce w i th t he adm i ni stra t i on of the i nt ernal r e v e n u e l a ws , i n v i o l a t i o n o f 2 6 U. S . C . § 7 2 1 2 ( a ) a n d 1 8 U. S . C . § 2 . Af t e rr e v i e w, w e a f f i r m. I. A l l e ge d G i gl i o V i ol at i on D ef endantC l ec kl erow ned a bu si ness ca l l ed “ E zy -R yder ” a nd co-ow ned anot her busi ness ca l l ed “ G ene’ s M ar i ne. ” T anya M orri s a nd C l evel and B row n are C l ec kl er ’ s f

orm erem pl oyee s. M orri s a nd B row n t es t i fi ed thatthey f al si fi ed d o cu m en ts to re flec t sales b y E zy -R yd er th at w er e a ctu ally attrib u tab le to G en e’s M a r i ne . C l e c kl e rs ubm i t t e d the f a br i c a t e d doc um e nt s t o the I nt e r na l R e ve nue S er v ice ( “IR S ”) d u rin g it s a u d itin to th e p ro p er allo ca ti o n o f in co m e a m o n g G en e’s M a r in e a n d E z y - R y d e r . I n a r gui ng on a ppe a l f

ora ne w tr i a l , C l e c kl e ra l l e ge s tha tthe gove r nm e nt h ad i m m u n i ty ag reem en t s w i th w i tn esses M o rri s an d B ro w n an d fai l ed t o d i scl o se th e m , th e r e b y v io la tin g th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s s ta n d in g d is c o v e r y o r d e ra n d its ob l i gat i on s und erG i gl i o v . U ni t ed S t at es , 40 5 U . S . 15 0, 92 S . C t . 76 3 (19 72 ). 1Morris did testify that Brown told her the g overnme nt would not prosecute the m if they 2 prov ide d in fo rm atio n, but Mo rris also a dmi tte d th at sh e on ly a ssume d A g e nt C larke tol d th is t o Brown and shedid not know if Brown eve r ac tually talked to anyone from the g overnme nt about immunity . 3 C l ec kl ercont ends thati nform at i on abou tthese i m m un i ty a gree m ent s w as m at er i al t o h i s d efen se, as th e g o v ern m en t ’ s case h i n g ed o n th e cred i b i l i ty o f th ese w i tn esses. C l eck l er h as n o tsh o w n rev ersi b l e erro r fo r tw o reaso n s. F ir s t, C le c k le rh a s n o t p r o v e d th a t e ith e rw itn e s s a c tu a lly h a d a n im m u n ity a g r e e m e n t w ith th e g o v e r n m e n t in e x c h a n g e f o rte s tim o n y a g a in s t C le c k le r . B r ow n de ni e d ha vi ng a ny di s c us s i on w i th I R S A ge ntK y l e C l a r ke r e ga r di ng i m m un i ty f

rom prosec ut i on i n exchang e f or hi s t es t i m on y. M orri s di d t es t i fy that 2
w he n s he m e tw i th A ge ntC l a r ke , s he c onf i r m e d w i th hi m tha ts he w oul d notbe pr os e c ut e d, butM or r i s ne ve rs t a t e d tha tA ge ntC l a r ke e xpl a i ne d s he w oul d notbe pr os e c ut e d i n e xc ha nge f orhe rt e s t i m ony . T he r e i s no e vi de nc e tha tthe g o v e r n m e n t’s d e c is io n to f o r g o p r o s e c u tio n w a s in e x c h a n g e f o rh e rte s tim o n y . R a th e r , A g e n t C la r k e ’s te s tim o n y d e m o n s tr a te s th a t n o s u c h im m u n ity a gr e e m e nte xi s t e d. A ge ntC l a r ke t e s t i f i e d a boutthe m e e t i ng w i th M or r i s a nd B row n. A cc ordi ng t o A gentC l ar ke, af t erthe m ee t i ng , M orri s a sked i f s he w as

“ go i ng t o g eti n t roub l e f or thi s. ” A gentC l ar ke expl ai ned t hi s I R S po l i cy : before the IR S t al ks t o a pers on , i f the pers on i s und eri nv es t i gat i on , the IR S m ustno t i fy h e rth a t s h e is u n d e rin v e s tig a tio n a n d d o e s n o t h a v e to a n s w e ra n y q u e s tio n s .4

A ge ntC l a r ke t ol d M or r i s tha tbe c a us e he di d notha ve a n i nve s t i ga t i on on he ra nd he rI R S non- c us t ody r i ght s ha d notbe e n r e a d t o he r , he c oul d notus e a ny thi ng s he to ld h im in p r o s e c u tio n a g a in s t h e r . T h u s , a c c o r d in g to A g e n t C la r k e , h e m e r e ly i nf or m e d M or r i s tha the rs t a t e m e nt s tha tda y c oul d notbe us e d a ga i ns the ra nd n e v e rin d ic a te d th a t s h e w o u ld n o t b e p r o s e c u te d b a s e d o n h e rw illin g n e s s to t est i fy. S e c o n d , a n d e v e n i f

a f a c tu a l i s s u e e x i s t s a s t o wh e th e rMo r r i s a n d B r o wn bel i eved t hey had i m m un i ty a gree m ent s, C l ec kl erhas notshow n t hathe suff er ed prej ud i ce i n t he del ay ed di sc l osure of the al l eged agree m ent s. “ D el ay ed di sc l osure m a y be gr ounds f

orr e ve r s a l , butonl y i f

the de f e nda ntc a n s how pr e

j udi c e , e . g. , the m a t e r i a l c a m e s o l a t e tha ti tc oul d notbe e f f e c t i ve l y us e d. ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. B ue no- S i e r r a , 99 F . 3d 375, 379 ( 11th C i r . 1996) ( quot a t i on m a r ks a nd c i t a t i on o m i t t ed ). In th i s case, C l eck l er’ s at t o rn ey h ad th e fu l l o p p o rtu n i ty t o cro sse x a m in e M o r r is , B r o w n , a n d A g e n t C la r k e a f te rM o r r is ’s te s tim o n y , a n d , in f a c t, di d q uest i on M orri s a nd B row n abo utthei r und er st andi ng re gardi ng po t ent i al p r o s e c u tio n . S e e id . a t 3 7 9 - 8 0 ( n o tin g th a t p r e ju d ic e w a s a v e r te d o n B r a d y c la im w h ere, fo l l o w i n g d el ayed d i scl o su re, ad d i t i o n al cro ss-ex am i n at i o n o f th e w i tn ess wa s a l l o we d a n d i m p e a c h i n g m a t e r i a l wa s f u l l y e x p l o r e d ) . Ac c o r d i n g l y , we c a n n o t s a y th e d is tr ic t c o u r t e r r e d in d e n y in g C le c k le r ’s m o tio n f o ra n e w tr ia l.We reviewthe district court’s f indings on the a

pplicability

of both prong s of the crime- 3 fra ud exception for an a

buse of discretion. See In re Grand Jury (G.J. No. 87-03-A), 845 F .2d 896, 898 (11th Cir. 1988); In re Grand Jury Investig ation (Schroe der) , 842 F.2d 1223, 1226- 27 (11th Cir. 1987). As an initial matter, Cleckle r’s brie f make s a passingref erence to protected “ attorney work produc t” that Selfe w as orde red to re veal. B eca use Cleckler

failed to de velop an a

rgument on this iss ue, he a

bandoned it. See United States v. J ernig an, 341 F .3d 1273, 1284 n.8 (11th Cir. 2003). 5 II. C r i m e - F r au d E xc e p t i on C l ec kl ernextar gu es thatthe di stri ctcourti m prop er l y c om pel l ed hi s a t t orney E dw a r d S e l f

e t o t e s t i f y c onc e r ni ng pr i vi l e ge d i nf or m a t i on unde rthe c r i m e - f r a ud e xc e pt i on. “ T he a t t or ne y - c l i e ntpr i vi l e ge doe s notpr ot e c tc om m uni c a t i ons m a de

3 i n furt hera nce of a c ri m e or f ra ud . ” I n re G ra nd Jury Invest i gat i on (S chroeder) , 842 F . 2d 1223, 1226 ( 11th C i r . 1987) . W e e m pl oy a tw o- pa r tt e s tt o e xa m i ne the a ppl i c a bi l i ty of

the c r i m e - f

r a ud e xc e pt i on: F i rs t , there m ustbe a pri m a f ac i e s ho w i ng thatthe cl i en tw as engaged i n c r i m i na l orf

r a udul e n t co n d u ctw he n he s oughtthe a dvi c e of coun se l , that h e w as p la nn i ng such cond uctw hen h e s ou gh tthe advi ce o f c o u n s e l, o rth a t h e c o m m itte d a c r im e o rf r a u d s u b s e q u e n t to rece iv in g the benef

i tof coun se l ’ s a dv i ce . S ec on d, there m ustbe a s how i ng tha tthe a t t or ne y ’ s a s s i s t a nc e w a s obt a i ne d i n f ur the r a nc e of th e c r im in a l o rf

r a u d u le n t a c tiv ity o rw a s c lo s e ly r e la te d to it. C ox v. A dm ’ rU . S . S t e e l e & C a r ne gi e , 17 F . 3d 1386, 1416 ( 11th C i r . 1994) ( c ita tio n o m itte d ) . “T h e f ir s t p r o n g is s a tis f

ie d b y a s h o w in g o f

e v id e n c e th a t, if bel i eved by a tri erof fa ct , w ou l d est abl i sh the el em ent s of s om e vi ol at i on thatw as ongoi ng ora boutt o be c om m i t t e d. ” S c hr oe de r , 842 F . 2d a t1226. “ T he s e c ond6

pr ong i s s a t i s f

i e d by a s how i ng tha tthe c om m uni c a t i on i s r e l a t e d t o the c r i m i na l or f r a udul e nta c t i vi ty e s t a bl i s he d unde rthe f i r s tpr ong. ” I d. a t1227. I n thi s c a s e , S e l f

e r e pr e s e nt e d de f

e nda ntC l e c kl e ri n hi s a ppe a l of I R S A ge nt F r a n k B r a n d ’s f

in d in g th a t f

u n d s d e p o s ite d in to E z y - R y d e r ’s a c c o u n t a c tu a lly r e p r e s e n te d s a le s b y G e n e ’s M a r in e . S e lf e to ld C le c k le rit w o u ld b e h e lp f u l to do cum entany s al es E zy -R yderm ade of boat s or tra i l er s t o t hi rd part i es . S el fe l at er r e c e i ve d doc um e nt a t i on f r om C l e c kl e r , i nc l udi ng i nvoi c e s a nd de pos i ts l i ps , a nd pr oduc e d the m t o A ge ntB r a nd. A ge ntB r a nd r e que s t e d a ddi t i ona l doc um e nt a t i on t o sup po rtthe subm i t t ed i nv oi ce s. S el fe as ked C l ec kl eri f he had any addi t i on al doc um e nt a t i on, a nd C l e c kl e rpr ovi de d the a l l e ge d ba c k- up doc um e nt a t i on. In hi s bri ef

on appeal , C l ec kl erar gu es the fol l ow i ng t es t i m on y by S el fe vi ol at ed the att orney- cl i entpri vi l ege: [ G ove r nm e nt ’ s l a w y e r ] : D i d y ou s pe a k w i th G e ne C l e c kl e ra bout F r a nk B r a nd’ s r e que s tf ora ddi t i ona l doc um e nt a t i on? [ S e l f e ] : Y e s , I di d. [G ov ernm ent ’ s l aw ye r] : C an you d es cr i be thatconv er sa t i on , pl ea se . [S el fe ] : I c anno tdesc ri b e the conv er sa t i on ot her than t o say I a sked h i m i f th ere w as an y b ack u p i n fo rm at i o n t o su p p o rtth o se i n v o i ces. [G ov ernm ent ’ s l aw ye r] : A nd w hatw as M r. C l ec kl er ’ s r es po nse? [ S e l f e ] : H e s a id h e w o u ld m a k e a n – m y b e s t r e c o lle c tio n is th a t h e s a id h e w o u ld m a k e a n in v e s tig a tio n a n d s e e . W e c an n o t say th e d istrict co u rt ab u se d it s d iscr etio n in fin d in g th at S elfe ’s a bove t e s t i m ony f

e l l w i thi n the c r i m e - f

r a ud e xc e pt i on t o the a t t or ne y - c l i e ntCleckler’ s brief c ites only to “R2-276” f

or the attorney

conver sation. However, Selfe 4 te sti fi e d re g ardinga

no ther c onve rs atio n w ithCle c kler at R2 -2 70 -7 1, a s f oll ow s: [Government’s lawyer]: Now, did you ask Ge ne Cleckle r w h eth erEzy-Ryder ha d sold boats to customers other than–othe r than Gene’s Ma rine? [S elfe ]: Yes, I

did. [Government’s lawyer]: Okay . . . . What wa s Mr. Cleckler ’s re sponse–Mr. Ge ne Cle c kler’ s r e sp on seto your q ue sti on a bo ut E zy-R

yde r s a le s to thi rd

pa rtie s? [Sel fe ]: We ll, my

be st re c oll e c tio n is hedid thi nk that th e rewereso me sa le s o f b oats or tr a ile rs by

Ezy-R yde r t o th ird p artie s. [Government’s lawyer]: And did you talk to E ug ene Clec kler a bout documenting tho sethi rd -p art

y sa le s? [Sel fe ]: Idid

say tha t if Ezy-R yde r did s e ll b oats o r t

raile rs to thi rd

pa rtie s, it w ou ld behe lpf ul t o d oc ument t

ho sesa le s. Th e arguments in C le c kler’ s b ri e f s e e m broa de r t ha n th e c onve rs atio n a

bo ve , a nd thereis an issue as to whe ther Cleckle r ade quately challeng ed this conver sation as well. We nee d not resolve the se questions bec ause, a s to this conversation, our a nalysis of the crime- fra

ud exception would apply

equally to this t estimony . To the extent Cleckler a ppeals Selfe ’s te sti mony “ a bo ut all f a c e ts o f t heIRS a udit, ” theatto rn e y-c lie nt p ri vil e g e do e s n ot a pp ly to conver sations that Selfe had w ith people other tha n Cleckler, f

or instance , an IRS admini strative of fi c e r. Se e Sc hroe de r, 84 2 F .2 d at 12 24 -2 5 ( “ Th e atto rn e y-c lie nt p ri vil e g e atta c he s o nly to c omm un ic atio ns ma dein c on fi de nc e to a n atto rn e y by that atto rn e y ’s c lie nt . . . .”(e mph a sis added) ). 7 pri vi l ege. H er e, the evi dence s ho w s thatthe IR S re po rt ed thatC l ec kl erow ed

4
a ddi t i ona l t a xe s a nd tha tC l e c kl e robt a i ne d S e l f e ’ s r e pr e s e nt a t i on i n the w a ke of thatIR S re po rt . A ft erS el fe t ol d C l ec kl eri tw ou l d h el p h i s I R S appeal t o p rodu ce do cum ent s of E zy -R yder ’ s s al es t o t hi rd part i es , C l ec kl ersubm i t t ed fa bri ca t ed do cum ent s, throu gh S el fe , t o A gentB ra nd thatre fl ec t ed fi ct i t i ou s thi rd-par ty s al es by E zy -R yder . C l ec kl erfurther s ub m i t t ed addi t i on al fabri ca t ed do cum ent s a ft er A g en tB ran d ’ s req u estfo r b ack -u p d o cu m en t at i o n . C l eck l er su b m i t t ed th ese fab ri cat ed d o cu m en t s as p arto f h i s o n g o i n g co n d u ctt o d efrau d th e IR S . T h u s, C l e c kl e r“ c om m i t t e d a c r i m e orf r a ud s ubs e que ntt o r e c e i vi ng the be ne f i tofWe reviewthe district court’s e videntiary ruling s for c lear

abuse of discretion. United 5 S t at es v . Di ck er s o n , 2 4 8 F. 3 d 1 0 3 6 , 1 0 4 6 (1 1 thC i r. 2 0 0 1 ). T h e d i s tri ctco urt ’s fa ctu al fi n d i n gs c on c e rn ingthetr

us tw or thi ne ss o f a

bu sin e ss o r p ub licre c ord a re“ re ve rs ibl e on ly

if c le arly erroneous.” United States v. Petrie, 302 F.3d 1280, 1288 ( 11th Cir. 2002). Cleckler also alleg es that the district cour t admitted other g overnme nt exhi bits “that eac h 6 contained ma

ny alleg ed witness stateme nts and conc lusions by the tax auditor.” Some of the exhibi ts that Cleckler identifies w erenot even a dmitted by the district court. As to the one exhibi t that was admitted, exhibit101, Cleckler f ails to identify

the par ticular stateme nt or statements that should not have be en admitted. B eca use Cleckler

did not develop this argument in h is b ri e f, wede e m it

a ba nd on e d. Se e Jer

nig an, 34 1 F .3 d at 12 84 n. 8. In a ny e ve nt, e xhibi t 101 was a n IRS form prepared by

Ag ent B rand that contained his conc lusions about what c ha ng e s sh ou ld b e ma deto G e ne ’s Mari netax re tur ns , a nd Cle c kler h a s sh own n o re ve rs ibl e error as to the a dmission of ex hibit 101. 8 c ouns e l ’ s a dvi c e . ” C ox, 17 F . 3d a t1416. A s t o the s e c ond pr ong, the com m un i ca t i on s a ti ss ue w er e r el at ed t o t he fr audu l entac t i vi ty: C l ec kl erob t ai ned S e l f e ’ s a s s i s t a nc e t o f

ur the rhi s f

r a udul e nta c t i vi ty a nd us e d S e l f e t o pr ovi de a ddi t i ona l f

a br i c a t e d doc um e nt s t o A ge ntB r a nd.

III. A l l e ge d H e ar s ay V i ol at i on C l ec kl eral so ar gu es thatthe di stri ctcourti m prop er l y a dm i t t ed i nt o evi dence IR S rep o rt s an d m em o ran d a th atco n t ai n ed i n ad m i ssi b l e h earsay st at em en t s. 5 S peci fi ca l l y, the di stri ctcourtadm i t t ed go vernm ent ’ s e xh i bi t25 , a w ork p aperthat A gentB ra nd prepare d d uri ng hi s a ud i tof E zy -R yderand as par tof hi s off i ci al dut i e s f orthe I R S . E xhi bi t25 out l i ne d A ge ntB r a nd’ s f i ndi ngs a nd c ont a i ne d the 6 hear sa y s t at em ent s of C l ec kl er ’ s f orm erac coun t antJa ni ce H ul l . T he di stri ctcourt a dm i t t e d e xhi bi t25 a s both a r e c or d of a r e gul a r l y c onduc t e d bus i ne s s a c t i vi ty a nd a r e c or d of

a publ i c a ge nc y , unde rF e de r a l R ul e s of E vi de nc e 803( 6) a nd 803( 8)We reviewthe district court’s f actual findings f

or cle ar error

and the a pplication of the 7 guidelines to those fac ts de novo. United States v. Massey, 443 F.3d 814, 818 ( 11th Cir. 2006). Ho we ve r, we“ a c c ord gre at de ferenc e to t hedis tric t c ourt ’s c re dib ili ty de te rm inatio ns ” in revie wing“an obstruc tion of justice enhanc ement base d on perjury .” United States v. Singh, 291 9 resp ect i v el y. T he go vernm entar gu es thatC l ec kl erhas notshow n t hatthe di stri ctcourt a bus e d i t s di s c r e t i on i n a dm i t t i ng e xhi bi t25, a s the doc um e ntf e l l w i thi n both the bus i ne s s r e c or ds a nd publ i c r e c or ds e xc e pt i ons t o the he a r s a y rul e . F ur the r , the g o v er n m en t p o in ts o u t th at C leck ler h as n o t d em o n stra ted th at th e d istrict co u rt’s fi nd i ng thatexhi bi t25 w as ot herw i se trustw orthy w as cl ea rl y e rr on eous. W e nee d n o t r e s o lv e th e s e is s u e s b e c a u s e w e r e a d ily c o n c lu d e th a t a n y a lle g e d e r r o rin adm i t t i ng exhi bi t25 w as harm l es s i n any event . T hrou gh the t es t i m on y of S el fe , M or r i s , a nd B r ow n, a nd s om e of the f a br i c a t e d doc um e nt s i n i s s ue , the gove r nm e nt c l e a r l y e s t a bl i s he d tha tC l e c kl e rdi r e c t e d the f a br i c a t i on of

doc um e nt s r e f

l e c t i ng f ic titio u s th ir d - p a r ty s a le s a n d th a t h e s u b m itte d th e s e d o c u m e n ts to th e I R S . G i ven t he ov erw hel m i ng evi dence of C l ec kl er ’ s gui l t , w e c on cl ud e thatany s uch erro r w o u l d h av e b een h arm l ess.

I V. O bs t r uc t i o n- o f

- J us t i c e Enha nc e m e nt F i nal l y, C l ec kl erar gu es thatthe di stri ctcourti m prop er l y app l i ed an ob struct i on -of-

j ust i ce enhancem entt o h i s a dv i sory se nt enci ng gu i del i nes ca l cul at i on , un der U . S . S . G . § 3 C 1. 1, base d o n h i s tri al t es t i m on y. C l ec kl er 7F.3d 756, 763 ( 11th Cir. 2002). 10

c ont e nds tha tthe e nha nc e m e nti s noti nt e nde d t o puni s h a de f e nda ntf ore xe r c i s i ng hi s c on st i tut i on al ri gh tt o d eny or r ef use t o adm i thi s gui l t . A cc ordi ng t o C l ec kl er , h e d i d n o tp erj u re h i m sel f attri al b y co n co ct i n g fal se, al t ern at i v e factu al scen ari o s; rat h er, h e m erel y d en i ed th e ev en t s as p o rtrayed b y B ro w n an d M o rri s. S ec t i on 3C 1. 1 o f the S ent enci ng G ui del i nes provi des f or a tw o l evel enhancem enti f: ( A ) th e d e f

e n d a n t w illf

u lly o b s tru c te d o rim p e d e d , o ra tte m p te d to obs truc tori m pe de , the a dm i ni s tr a t i on of j us t i c e dur i ng the co u r s e of the i nv es t i ga t i on, pr os e c ut i on, ors e nt e nc i ng of the i ns t a ntof

f e ns e of c onvi c t i on, a nd ( B ) the obs truc t i ve c onduc tr e l a t e d t o . . . [ the ] o ffen se o f c o n v ic tio n a n d a n y r e le v a n t c o n d u c t . . . . U . S . S . G . § 3C 1. 1 ( 2000) . E xa m pl e s of c ove r e d c onduc ti nc l ude “ c om m i t t i ng, s u b o r n in g , o ra tte m p tin g to s u b o r n p e r ju r y .” I d . a t c m t. n .4 ( b ) . A s e n te n c e e n h a n c e m e n t b a s e d o n a f in d in g o f p e r ju r y d o e s n o t c h ill a de f e nda nt ’ s r i ghtt o t e s t i f

y , be c a us e “ a de f

e nda nt ’ s r i ghtt o t e s t i f

y doe s noti nc l ude a r ig h t to c o m m it p e r

ju r y .” U n ite d S ta te s v . D u n n ig a n , 5 0 7 U .S . 8 7 , 9 6 , 1 1 3 S . C t. 1111, 1117 ( 1993) . F orpurpos e s of a § 3C 1. 1 e nha nc e m e nt , w e ha ve a dopt e d the S up re m e C ou rt ’ s def

i ni t i on of perj ury a s “ fa l se t es t i m on y c on ce rni ng a m at er i al m a t t e rw i th the w i l l f

ul i nt e ntt o pr ovi de f

a l s e t e s t i m ony , r a the rtha n a s a r e s ul tof c onf us i on, m i s t a ke , orf

a ul ty m e m or y . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. S i ngh, 291 F . 3d 756, 76311

( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ) ( q u o tin g D u n n ig a n , 5 0 7 U .S . a t 9 4 , 1 1 3 S . C t. a t 1 1 1 6 ) . A c c or di ngl y , f

oure l e m e nt s m us tbe m e tt o s uppor ta f i ndi ng of pe r j ur y : ( 1) the defe nd antt es t i fi ed un der oath; (2) the t es t i m on y w as fa l se ; (3) the t es t i m on y w as m at eri al ; an d (4 ) th e t est i m o n y w as “ g i v en w i th th e w i l l fu l i n t en tt o p ro v i d e fal se t es t i m on y a nd no tas a r es ul tof a m i st ake, confusi on , or fa ul ty m em ory. ” I d. at 7 6 3 n .4 . U p o n r e v ie w o f

th e r e c o r d a n d th e p a r tie s ’ b r ie f s , w e d is c e r n n o e r r o rw ith re gard t o t he appl i ca t i on of the § 3 C 1. 1 enh ance m enthere . T he re cord bel i es C le c k le r ’s c o n te n tio n th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t im p o s e d th e e n h a n c e m e n t m e r e ly beca use he t es t i fi ed and w as foun d g ui l ty. R ather, the di stri ctcourtcond uct ed an i nd ependentre vi ew of the re cord and m ade s peci fi c f i nd i ng s of per

j ury, w hi ch ar e s u p p o r te d b y th e r e c o r d a n d a r e n o t c le a r ly e r r o n e o u s . F o r al l o f th ese reaso n s, w e affi rm C l eck l er’ s co n v i ct i o n s an d sen t en ces. AF F I RME D.