FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V E N T H C IR C U IT J UNE 8, 2005 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 04- 1361 2 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D.C. Dock etNo. 0 3- 00 01 6- CR-1 -DHB UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Plaintiff-Appellee, ve rs us RIT A N ZE RIBE UD OM, D ef en dant- Appe llant.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ Appe al f ro m the U nit ed

S ta te s D istri ct

Co urt fo r the S outhe rnD istri ct

of G eo rg ia

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ ( June 8, 200 5) Be fo re BI RC H , D U BIN A and B A RKE T T , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M: Appe llant R ita

N ze ri be U dom

appe al s he r co nvi ct ionand s en te nc e fo r un la wfu ll y

di sp en si ng co nt ro ll edsu bs ta nc es , in vi ol at io n o f 21 U.S.C. § 8 41 (a)( 1) .2

On appeal, she challenges (1) her tw o-level enhancem ent for obstruction o f j ustice an d ( 2) he r se nte nc e unde r the gui de lin es pur suant t o United States v. B ooker , 543 U. S. __, 125 S. C t. 738, 160 L. Ed. 2d 621 (2005). I. U dom arg ue s th at

the dis tr ic t c ourt f

ai le d to m ak e spe ci fi c fi ndi ngs to supp ort an ob str

uc tio n of j ust ic e en hanc em en t, w hic h w as ins uf fi ci en t f or im posi tio n of

the e nhanc em en t. S he a sse rt s th at she m ad e spe ci fi c obj ec tio ns t o ea cha lle ga tio n of

obs tr uc tio n and r eque ste d th at the dis tr ic t c ourt m ak e pa rti cu la riz edfin di ng s, wh ic h t he di st ric t co ur t fa il edto do .

“ T his Co urt r ev ie w s th e dis tr ic t c ourt’ s in te rp re ta tio n and a ppl ic at ionof

the se nte nc ing gui de lin es de novo .” U nit ed Sta tes v . M

ac hado , 333 F . 3d 1 225, 122 7 (1 1thCi r. 200 3) . W

he n r ev ie w ing the appl ic at ionof U . S. S. G . § 3C 1. 1, w e ha ve determ ined W h e r e t h e d i s t r i c t c o u rt m u s t m a k e a p a rt i c u l a r i z e d a s s e s s m e n t o f the cr ed ibi lity

or de m eanor

of the de fe ndant, w e ac co rd spe ci al de fe re nc e to the district court’ s credibility determ ination s , an d we reviewfor cle ar er ro r. C onve rs el y , w he re the de fe ndant’ s c re dib ili ty or de m eanor

is not at iss ue , and the de fe ndant’ s cond uc t can be c le ar ly

se t f orth i n de ta ile d, n o n -c o n cl u s o ry fi n d i n g s , we re v i ew d e n o v o th e d i s t ri ct co u rt ’s ap pli catio n of

the e nhanc em en t. United States v. A me deo , 370 F . 3d 1 305, 131 8 ( 11th C ir . 200 4) ( ci ta tio ns and quot at ion s om itt ed ). S ec tio n 3C 1. 1 pr ovi de s th at atw o- le ve l e nhanc em en t m ay be3

ap pli ed to the ba se of

fe nse le ve l i f “ the de fe ndant w ill fu lly obs tr uc te d or im pe de d, or a tte m pte d to obs tr

uc t or im pe de , the a dm ini str at ionof j ust ic e dur ing the c our se of the inv es tig at ion , pr ose cu tio n, or se nte nc ing . . . ” U . S. S. G . § 3C 1. 1. T he com m entary to § 3C1.1 cites “ com

m itting , suborning, or attem pting to subo rn perj ury ” and “providi ng m aterially false inform ation to a judge or m agistrate” as ex am pl es of c on du ctto whi ch th e en ha nc em en t ap pl ie s. See id. , cmt. n .4(b ), (f).

“ [T ] he thr es hol d f

or m at er ia lity

und er the c om m en tary to § 3C 1. 1 is

‘ conspicu ouslylow. ’ ” U

nit ed Sta tes v . O de din a , 980 F. 2d 70 5, 707 (11th Cir. 1993 ) (quot ing United States v. D edeker , 961 F. 2d 16 4 (11th Cir. 1992)). T he S upr em e Co urt ha s he ld tha t if a def endant objec ts to a sentence enhancem ent resulting from her trial te sti m ony , a

dis tr ic t c ourt m

ust rev ie wthe e vid en ce and m ak e ind ep en de nt f

ind ing s ne ce ssary

to es ta bli sh a w ill fu l im

pe dim en t to or obst ru ct i o n of j ustice, or an attem pt to do the sam e, under the perj ury definition we have set out. When doin g so, it is prefer able for a district co urt t o a ddr es s e ac h e le m en t of the a lle ge d pe rj ur

y in a se parate and cl ear fi ndi ng. T he dis tr ic t co urt’ s de te rm inatio n that en hancem en t is required is sufficient, however, if . . . the c ourt m akes a finding of an obst r u c t i o n o f , o r i m p e d i m e n t t o , j u s t i c e t h a t e n c o m p a s s e s a l l of

the f a c tu a l p r e d i c a t e s f

o r af i n d i n g o f p e r ju ry. U nit ed Sta tes v . D unni

gan , 507 U . S. 87, 95, 113 S . Ct . 111 1, 111 7, 122 L . E d. 2d 445 (1 993) ( ci ta tio ns o m itt ed ). “ [C ] ourts m ust not spe cu la te c onc er

nin g th e ex ist en ce of

af ac t w hic h w oul d pe rm it a m or e se ve re se nte nc e unde r the4

guid elines.” U

nit ed Sta tes v . Ca tal

do , 171 F . 3d 1 316, 132 1 ( 11th C ir . 199 9) (quotation om itted). A ft er r ev ie w ing the r ec or d, w e co nc lud e that the dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t e rr by enhancing Udom ’ s sentence for obstruction of justice. While the district court vie w ed the e nti re ty

of U dom ’ s c ondu ct

a s w ar ranti ng the e nhanc em en t, it specifically

point ed to her encouraging her assistant to li e to the grand j ury as suf fi ci en t c ondu ct

f or the e nhanc em en t. T he dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t have to spe cu la te r eg ar din g U dom ’ s su bor nin g or a tte m pt t o su bor n th e pe rj ur

y , a s th e gove rn m en t pr oduc ed

ata pe of the r el ev an t c onve rs at iona t tri al . B ec au se the conduct di d not result from her trial te stim ony , it w as not necessary for the district co urt t o m ak e spe ci fi c fa ct ua l f ind ing s. A ddi tio na lly , U dom ’ s un tr uth fu l statem ents to the m agistrate j udge regarding her children and the condi tions of her bond w er e ci te d a s th e fa ct

ua l ba sis f

or the e nhanc em en t. T he r ec or d su ppor ts the co nc lus ionthat U dom

li ed to the m ag istrate j udge . T his c ondu ct w as suf fi ci en t t o im pose an ob str

uc tio n of j ust ic e en hanc em en t. T he re fo re , the dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t err b y en ha nc in g Ud om ’s sen te nc e fo r ob st ru ct io n o f jus ti ce. II.5

Udom argues that the district court plainlyerr ed under Booker by

“ ca lc ulatin g he r se nte nc e pur suant t o th e Fe de ra l S en te nc ing G uid el ine s in violatio n of the Sixth Am endm ent.” A ti m el y c onst itu tio na l ob

j ec tio n, suc h a s on e re fe rr ing to the S ixth Am en dm en t, A

ppre ndior

oth er r el at ed c as es , or the r igh t t o have the j ur

y de ci de the dis put ed

f ac t, or r ai se ac ha lle nge to the r ole of the j udge a s f

ac tf ind er w ith regard to sentencing, is necessar y to preserve Booker

erro r. See United States v. D ow lin g , 403 F. 3d 12 42, 1246-47 (2005). “ An appellate c ourt m ay not correct an er ro r the de fe ndant f

ai le d to r ai se in the dis tr ic t c ourt un le ss the re is: ( 1) e rr or , ( 2) that i s pl ai n, and ( 3) that a ff ec ts s ubst an tia l r igh ts. I f al l thr ee c ondi tio ns are m et , anappe llate c ourt m ay

the n e xe rc ise it s di sc re tio n to not ic e a fo rf ei te d e rr or , but onl y if ( 4) the e rr or

se ri ousl y a ff ec ts the f ai rn es s, int eg ri ty , or

pub lic r ep utatio n of j udicial proceedings.” Id . at 1 24 7 (c it at io ns an d q uo ta ti on s o m it te d) . Under Booker , the f

irst two prongs are satisfied w here “ unde r a m anda tor y guidelines system , [ a de fe ndant’ s] se nte nc e w as e nhanc ed a s ar es ult

of f ind ing s m ad e by the j udge that w en t be y ond the f ac ts a dm itt ed

by the de fe ndant o r fo und by the jury” andth e err oris pl ai n a t t he ti m e o f ap pe al . United States v. Rodriguez , 39 8 F .3d12 91 , 12 98 -9 9 (1 1t h C ir.) , petition for cert. filed , N o. 04- 1148 ( U . S. F eb . 23, 200 5) ( em pha sis in or igi na l) . A s to the thi rd pr ong, “ the6

de fe ndant b ears the bur de n of pe rs ua sio n w ithr es pe ct

to pr ej udi ce , and tha t he cannot sur viv e pla in e rr or

ana ly sis unl es s he c ansho wthe re is a re as ona ble probabilit y

of a diff erent re sult if the gui delines had been appli ed in an adviso ry instead of bind ing fashion by the sentencing judge in this case. ” D ow lin g , 403 F. 3d at 12 47 ( quot at ionom itt ed ). W e ha ve ge ne ra lly he ld tha t a

bse nt e vid en ce in the r ec or d th at

the dis tr ic t c ourt m igh t have im pose d adif

fe re nt s en te nc e unde r the ne w adv is ory

gu id el in es reg im e, th e d efen da nt can no t s at is fy th e th ird pro ng . See, e. g. , id. ; U

nit ed Sta tes v . Cu rti

s , 400 F . 3d 1 334, 133 6 ( 11th C ir . 200 5) ; United Sta tes v . D unc an , 400 F. 3d 12 97, 1302-04 (11th Cir. 2005). W e conclude from

the rec ord that the dist rict court did not vi olate Booker by sentencing Udom

under the guid elines. U dom did no t objec t on const itutio nal gr ound s a t se nte nc ing , but on the f ac tua l ba sis , m ak ing pla in e rr or the standard

of review . Under Booker , the f irst two prongs of plain error ar e satisfied. How ever, U dom f ai le d to e sta

bli sh the thi rd

pr ong. S he did

not poi nt t o any

e vid en ce in the re co rd de m onstratin g “ a re as ona ble pr oba bil ity of adif fe re nt r es ult

if the gui de lin es ha d be enappl ie d inan a dvi sor y ins te ad of bin din g f as hio n by the sentencing judge in this case. ” D ow lin g , 403 F . 3d at 12 47. Ar ev ie wof the se nte nc ing tr an sc ri pt d oe s no t r ev ea l any ind ic at ionthat the dis tr ic t c ourt w oul d7

ha ve im pose d alow er

se nte nc e ha d th e gui de lin es be ena dvi sor y . T he re fo re , the di st ric t co ur t d idno t p la in ly err by sen te nc in g Ud om un de r th e g ui de li ne s. For the fore goin g reasons, w e af firm Udom ’ s sentence. AFFIRMED.