## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it

N o. 09

- 3425 U NI T ED S TATE SOF A MERI CA, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v.
K EVY N T A Y L OR, D ef endant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court fo r the S outhernDi stricto f Illino is. No . 08 C R 30061

—J. Phil Gilbert, Judge
.

A RG UE D N OVE MBE R 4, 2010

— D ECI DE D M AR CH 29, 2011

Befo re B AUER, M A NI ON, a nd H A MI L T ON, C ircu it Judges. M A NI ON, C ircu it Judge. K ev yn Tayl orwas convi cted bya j ur y o n s i x c o unt s r el at ed to hi s par ti ci pat i o n i n a cr ac kde al i ngo per at i o n. The se i nc l ude d c ha rges thathe posse sse d, dist ributed, and conspi re d to dist ribute c ra ck c oc ain e, as w ell as rela te d f i re ar m s c h ar ge s. H e a p p ea ls hi s co nv i ct i o n f o r di st r ibut i o n o fc r ac kc o cai ne , a r g ui ng th atthe r e w as i ns uffi ci en t ev i den ce f o r a j ur y t o fi nd b e y ond a r e a s o nab l e do ub ttha th e a i de d a nd ab e t t e d a2 N o. 09

- 3425

cra ck deal i n Octobe r 2005

. H e a l so appeal s the por ti on o fhi s se nt en ce r el at ed to the dr ugc o nv i ct i o ns , a r gu in g th atthe di st r i ctc o urto ve r - ca l cul at ed th e r el ev an t am ou n t of drugs and er re d i n enhanci ng hi s s entence f oro bstr ucti on o fj usti ce b ase d on hi s t ri alte sti m ony. W e a f fi rm the j ud gm ent a nd the sente nce.

I. I n 2 00 5, the Bur ea u ofAl co ho l, To ba cc o , F i r ea r m s, a nd Expl o si ve s be g ana n inve st i g at i o n i nt o dr ugt r affi ck i ng acti vi ty b y B yr on Bl ake and hi s a sso ci ate s i n East S t. Louis , Il l i noi s. T he inve sti gat i on was co de-nam ed “Operati o n No E s c a p e ” i n r e f e r e n c e t o C l u b E s c a p e , a n i g h t cl ub own ed by Blak e a nd the hom e ba se f orthe enter pri se. B eginn ing in Sept em ber of that year, con fi d en tial inform an ts made dr ugpurchas es fi r stfr o m Ry anI vo r y a nd eve ntual l y fro m Bl ake hi m se lf

. Later, i n the Spri ng o f 20 06 , the A TF ta pped the phone s o fBl ak e a nd Tay l o r a nd co nduc te d s ur ve i l l an ce o fB l ak e an d hi s as so ci at es . The i nvest i gat i on cul m i nated in the exec uti on o fse ver al s e a r c h w ar ra n ts , i n c lu d in g on e a t 1 14 B laz ier D riv e in Bel l evi l l e, wh er e Blak e and Tayl orwere known to have spent s i gni fi cant ti m e. I n M ar ch 2009 , Tayl or w as i nd i cted on si x co u n ts arisi ng from Op eration N o E scap e. R elevan t on ap p eal are Count 1

— conspi ra cy to dist ribu te ove r 50 gr am s o f cra ckc o ca i ne

— and C ount 2

— di s t r ib ut i ngmo r e than 50 gr am s ofcrackon October20 , 20 05, bo th in vi ol ati on o fN o. 09

- 3425 3

Count3 c har ge d pos s es s i on with i nte ntt o di s t ribut e on 1 J une 24 , 20 06 i n vi ol at i on of21 U. S. C. §§ 8 41 ( a) ( 1) an d 842( b)( 1) ( C); Cou nt 4 charged po ss es si on of a firear m i n furt he r a nc e o fa dr ug t r a f fi c ki ng c r i m e i n vi ol a t i ono f1 8 U. S. C. § 92 4 (c )(1)( A ); C ou nt 5 cha rg ed tha t Ta y lor w as a felon in p o sse ssi o n o f a fir ea rm in v io la tio n o f 1 8 U .S. C . § 9 2 2 (g )(1). T ay lor d oe s no t ap p eal h is con v iction on these th ree ch arg es. 21 U. S

. C. § § 84 1( a) ( 1) a nd ( b) ( 1) ( A)( i i i )

. A t tr i al, the 1 g o ve r nm en t so ug htt o pr o ve Cou nt 2 b y s ho wi ng that Tayl orai ded and abe tte d the r eco rded contr ol l ed buy that the go ver nm ent’ s co nfi denti ali nfo rm ant, M i c ha e l Wo o ds , ma de fr o m Bl a k e on Oc t o b e r 2 0

. Wo o ds tes ti fi ed that he bo ught drugs fro m Bl ake o n thr ee occa si ons i n Octobe r 2005

. Fi rs t, duri ng the week o fOctobe r 10, W oods acco m panie d I vor y t o pu rchas e cr ack f ro m Bl a k e , b ut s t a y e d i n the c a r whi l e I v o r y metBl a k e . S e c o nd , on Octo ber15 , Bl ake arr i ved atI vor y’ s ho use i n a t ruck dr i v e n b y T a y l o r . Whi l e Wo ods wai t e d, I v o r y a pp ro ached the vehi cl e. Bl ake handed fo ur- and-a- ha lf ounces ofcrackto T ayl or, w ho hand ed the drugs t o I vor y. Fin ally , on O c to b er 20 , W oo d s p u r c h as ed cr ac k d ire c tly f r o m Bl ak e whi l e wi r ed wi tha udi o - a nd v i deo

- r ec ord i ng equi pm en t. Aga i n at I vo r y ’ s ho us e, W o o ds st o o d wai ting o ut si d e h i s c a r u n t i l B l a k e a n d T a y l o r a r r i v e d i n a bl ack For d Ex plo re r th at Tayl orhad re nted sev er aldays b e f o r e . T h i s t i me , B l a k e e x i t e d th e t r u c k a n d g o t i n t o t he passenge r si de ofW oo ds’s car, wh er e the dealto ok pla ce. R yan Iv o r y a l so t es ti fi ed att r i al

. He de sc r ibe d the eve nts o fOctobe r 20 si m i l ar l y t o W oo ds and test i fi ed that T a y l o r d r o v e th e c a r h e h a d o b s e r v e d “ d u r i n gth a tt i me4 N o. 09

- 3425 peri od, ” but did notsp ecifi cal l y i denti fy Tay l oras bei ng pre sent on that day, norm enti on the tr ansact i on five d ay s b efo re . H e als o t es tifie d th at T ay lor w ou ld often a ccom pany Bla ke on deal s a nd so m eti m es c olle ct m o ne y f o r hi m , b utth e onl y s pec i fi c ti m e per i o ds he m enti oned w er e a fterthe October20 co ntro l l ed buy. To pro ve the conspi ra cy to dist ribute charg es of Count 1, th e g ov er n m en t p oin te d t o t h e e vid en c e o f T ay lor’ s p ar tic ipati on i n th e O c tober 20 deal, and al so i ntro du ced sel ecte d a ud i o re cor dings of phone cal l s between B l ake an d Ta y l o r t ha t, a c c o r di ng t o the t e s t i mon y o f the cas e age nt, co ncer ned the pre parat i on a nd d istr ibuti on o f cra ck coca i ne. I n one cal l, Tayl orr epor ted ba ck to Blak e that o n e of hi s purchas er s cl ai m ed that ther e was a probl em with hi s “ shake ” a nd w as unhapp y b ecause “he l ost ab o ut1 8 o uto fhi s two a nd a qua ker”; ac co r di ngt o the c a s e a g e nt thi s mea nt tha t the pu r c ha s e r c l a i med to have l ost18 gr am s o ut o f2 1/4 ounces ( 63 gr am s) o f pow der c oca i ne wh en he tr i ed to “co ok” the pow der to c o nv er t i t to c r ac k, po te nt i al ly th e r es ul t o fthe “shak e”

— the v er y pow dery coca i ne atthe bot tom o f a ba g

—bei ng cut w ith baki ng powd er . I vor y a l so i denti f i ed s om e of th e re c or d ed dis cussi ons as i nv o l vi ngc r ac kpr o duct i o n. Tayl orte st i fi ed i n hi s o w n defe nse. H e deni ed eve r havi ng m et W oo ds and d eni ed that he had eve r sol d or used coca i ne o r cra ck. H e di d, how eve r, ad m i t t o dea l i ngmar ij ua na , a nd a tt empte d t o e xpl ai n a way the i ncrim in at in g p h on e c on ve rs ati ons w i th Bl ake as re l ati ng so l el y t o the pr oducti on a nd sa l e o fm ar ij uana.N o. 09

- 3425 5

Str angely, n o one app ears to have sought to c lar ify w hat 2 t h e j u r y i n t e n d e d i n i t s s p e c i a l v e r d i c tf o r m. H e c laim ed th at B lak e w ou ld rec eiv e t h e m ar ij u an a in bri cks about the s i ze ofa h oc ke y p u ck and use a spe ci almachine to m o i st enthe mar ij ua na . The g o ve r nme n t c a l l e d t h e c a s e a g e n t b a c k t o th e s t a n d , a nd he re b u tted Tayl or ’ s t est i m ony, st ating tha t he had never hear d of applyi ng ba ki ng so da to m ar ij uana and that o th er a spe ct s o fthe r ec o r ded ca l l s wer e i nc o ns i st en t w i th m ar ij uana deal i ng. The j ur y c o nv i ct ed Ta y l o r o n a l l c o unt s. F o r Co unt1 , the j ur y was a sk ed to make s pec i alfi ndi ng s co nc erni ngthe quanti ty of the drugs i nvol ved. The ver dict sheet asked w h et h er th e o ffen se inv olv ed m or e t h an 50 gra m s o r, if l es s th an 5 0 gr ams, mor e th an5 g r ams. I ne xpl i cabl y , the j ury answ er ed “ye s” to both questi ons. 2 The p resente nce i nvest i gat i on r epor t ca l cul ate d that Tayl orwas re sponsibl e f or39 6. 7 gra m s o fpow der c oca i ne, 83 7 g ra m s o f cr ac k c oc ain e, a n d 22 7 k ilog ra m s o f m ar ij ua na

— a t o t a l m a r ij u a n a e q u i v a l e n c y o f1 7, 0 4 6 k i l o g r a ms und erthe sente nci ng g uidel i nes. I n re sponse to an o bj ecti on bythe gov er nm ent, the PSR w as am ended to i ncl ud e a two- l eve l enhancem ent f oro bstr ucti on o f j u st ice , fo r a t ota l o ff ense l eve l o f36

. W i th a cri m i nal hi sto rycat ego ryo fI, thi s r esulte d in a gui del i nes r ange of18 8 t o 235 m onths f orCounts 1 and 2. Regar di ngh i s r e l e v a ntc o nd uc t, T a y l o r ma de a f ew o b j e c t i o ns t o t he pr o b a t i o n o ffi c e r ’ s c ha r a c t e r i z a t i o n of the e vi dence and, m uch m or e s i gni fi cantl y, ar gued that6 N o. 09

- 3425 th e co ur t sh o ul d t ak e i nt o a ccou nt the di spa r i tyi n the gui del i nes’ tr eat m ent o fpow der a nd cr ack cocaine, as perm i tte d by Kim b r ough , a nd r edu ce the t o ta l mar ij ua na equi val ency consi derabl y, to 47 3. 74 kil ogr am s. H e a l so o b j e c t e d t o th e o b s t r u c t i o n o fj u s t i c e e n h a n c e m en t for p erj ury, arguing that suc h en ha nc em en ts “p u t[] a dampero n a ny o ne who want s to t es ti fy an d who might tes ti fy di f f e r e ntfr o m wha tthe g o v e r nme nts a y s . ” T a k en tog ether, hi s o bj ec tio ns would have re du ced the base off ense l eve l to 26 , with a gui del i ne r an ge o f 63 to 78 m ont h s ’ i m p risonm en t. T he cou rt ad op ted the P SR ’s recom m endati ons i n al l r espect s. Rega rdi ng the di spari ty between cr ack and pow der c oca i ne, the cour t decl i ned to disr ega rd t h e gui del i nes, st ati ng tha t i t would f ol l ow the c urr ent gu i del i nes r ati os unti l am ended. I t a l so f o und tha t Ta y l o r c o m m i tt ed perj ur y in hi s te st i m o ny by g o i ngb ey o nd a g en er alde ni alo fhi s i nv o l ve m en t and denyingspeci fi c detai l s o fhis i nvol vem ent with B lake, I vory, a n d o t h ers. T he cou rt then gave con cu rre nt be l ow-gui del i nes s entence s o f18 0 m onths on C ou nt s 1, 2, 3, a n d 5 , plus the m an d atory m inim um of a c o n se c u tiv e 6 0 m on th s fo r h is p os se ss ion of a fire ar m in fu rt h er an c e o f a d ru g t ra ffick in g c rim e. T ay lor a p p ea ls hi s co nvi cti on o n Count 2 an d his se ntence on Counts 1 and 2.

II. On a ppea l, Ta y l o r a r g ue s th atthe r e was i ns uffi ci en t ev i den ce f o r the j ur y to f i nd tha t he ai ded an d abe tt ed th e October20 cr ack deal

. Rega rdi ng hi s s entence , he m ake sN o. 09

- 3425 7
two a r g um en ts
. F i r st, he a rgue s th ata t se nt en ci ngthe dist ri ct c ourti ncor re ctl y c onsi dered as r el evantco nd uct an am ount o fdrugs that exceeded the j ury’ s s peci al ve rd ict . Sec on d , he arg u es th at th e d i s tr ict co u rtd id not m ake suffi ci ent fi nd i ngs t o supp or t i ts appli cati on o f a t w o- l eve l enhancem ent f oro bstr ucti on o fj usti ce. W e r ev i ew e ac h i ss ue i n tur n.

A
. Suff i ci ency o ft he Evi den ce Tayl or ar gues that ther e w as i nsuffi ci en t evi dence fro m w h ich th e jur y co u ld find be yo n d a re as on ab le doubt thathe a i ded and abe tte d Blake in the Octobe r 20, 2005 , drug deal

. I n thi s, Tayl orf aces a near l y i nsurm ountab le hur dle : to pre vai l, he m ust s how that“a fter vi ewi ngthe e vi den ce i n the l i g htmos t f av o r ab l e to the pr o se cut i o n, no r at i o na l tr i ero ff ac t co ul d ha ve f o und the e s s e nt i a l e l e men t s o f the o ff e ns e b e y o nd a r easonab l e doubt. ” U nite s State s v. Spell s , 53 7 F

. 3d 743, 74 6- 47 ( 7th Ci r. 20 08)

. Fur ther, i n re vi ew i ng the suffi ci ency of the e vid en ce in a c ri m i nal co nvi cti on, we do not re w e i g h th e e vid en c e o r se c on d -gu es s t h e jur y’s cr ed ib ility d et er m in at ion s. Id. To e st ab l i shtha t Ta y l o r a i ded an d abe tt ed B lake, the gov er nm ent ne eded to p ro ve that Tayl oras soc i ate d h im se lf w ith th e crim in al ac tiv ity an d th at h e v o l u n ta rily p a r tic ip at ed in it

. U nite d State s v. H eath , 1 8 8 F

. 3 d 9 16, 92 1 (7 th C ir. 19 99 ); U nite d State s v. Sewell, 15 9 F

. 3d 275, 278 ( 7th Ci r. 19 98)

. A sso ci atio n m eans that Tayl orshar ed i n Bl a k e ’ s c r i mi na l i nt e nt; pa r t i c i pa t i o n mea ns that T ay lor “a ffirm at ive ly ac te d to m ak e t h e v en tu re su c c ee d .”8 N o. 09

- 3425
H eath , 1 88 F

. 3d at9 21

. Tay lor’ s par ti ci pat i o n i n the Octo b e r 2 0 dr ug s a l e i s de mon s t r a t e d i n the r e c o r d: not onl y di d he dri ve Blak e t o and fr om I vor y’ s ho use, bu t he also rente d the veh icl e use d . B o t h of th ese are affi rm ati ve, vol untary acts thatco ntributed to the succes s o f the dr ug deal

. W h at T ayl orco ntest s i s whether the g overnm en t p ro ve d tha t he a ss o ci at ed hi m se l fwi ththe dea l : he a r gu es tha t th er e was no e vi den ce o fa ny th i ng o th ertha n h i s pr es en ce a t th e sc en e o fthe d rug d ea l, a nd that m er e pr ese nce i s in su ffi ci ent e vi dence to support a convi cti on f orai ding and abett i ng. W hi l e he does not appeal hi s co nvi cti on f orco nspir acy to dist ribute c ra ck, h e a rg u es th at al l o ft h e e vid en c e o f h is in vo lve m en t in the conspi ra cy re l ate d to a per i od ofti m e m onths after th e O ctob er 20 trans action and thu s d oes not sup p ort a r ea so nabl e i nfer en ce tha t he ha d the necessar y i nt en t to aid B lak e a t t h e t im e o f th e d ea l. Tayl or ’ s pre m i se i s co rr ect

— ther e i s no thi ng i l l ega l about re nti ng a caro r usi ng tha t ca r to gi ve som eone a r ide. And the mer e f ac t th atTa y l o r ’ s ac ti o ns a i ded th e ve nt ure i s no t en o ug h t o s uppo r t a co nv i ct i o n wi th o ut ev i den ce tha t Ta y l o r k ne w ofthe pur po se of the ventur e a nd i nt e nd e d t o ab e tthe dr ugde a l

. Bu tT a y l or unde r st at es the e vi den ce againsthi m . The g o ve r nm en t i ntr o du c e d e no ugh e v i de nc e f o r the j ur y t o fi nd tha t Tayl orwas not m er el y pr ese nt. M ostsi gni fi cantl y, W oo ds tes ti fi ed that j ust five days be f or e the r eco rded contr ol l ed buy, T aylo r had dri ven Bl ake o n another contr ol l ed buy. A t that fi rs t buy, m or eov er, W oo ds sta ted th at T ay lor h ad ac tu ally h an d led th e c r a c k , p as sin g it from Blake to Ivory. Th is evi d en c e a lon e refutes T aylor’sN o. 09

- 3425 9

m er e pr ese nce theor y: Tayl or ’ s di rec t parti ci pati on with B lak e in a c ra c k d ea l five d ay s p rior , i n a vi r t u ally i den ti ca l s i tu at i o n, pe r m i ts the j ur y t o i nfertha t he w as no t innoc en tly driving B lake to and from I vory’s ho us e, b uti ns te ad th atTa y l o r ren ted an d dr o ve the F o r d Expl o r erint en di ngt o a ss i stBl ak e i n di st r ibut i ng cr ac k

. Acco r di ng l y , Ta y l or ’ s co nv i ct i o n f o r di st r ibut i ng cra ck on Octo ber20 st ands.

B. Sente ncing Chal l enges Tayl oral so chal l enges two as pects of h is sentence

. F i r st, Ta y l o r a r g ue s th at, i n l i g hto fthe j ur y ’ s co ntr adi ct o r y fi ndi ng s co nc erni ngth e qua nt i tyo fdr ug s, the d ist ric t c ou rterr ed in fin d in g t h at h e w as res p on sib le f o r mor e th an5 0 g r ams o fc r ac k

. Al tho ug h h i s ar g um en t i s d iffi cul t t o f ol l ow, Tayl orappears to co ntend that by consi deri ng a quanti ty of drugs hi gher than th at f o und b y the j ur y , the di st r i ctc o ur t vi o l at ed at l ea stthe pri nci ple s unde rly i ng A pp rend i v. New Jersey, 530 U

. S. 466 ( 2000 )

. The go ver nm en t c onte nd s that Tay l or w ai v e d t h i s arg u m en t b y n ot rais in g it a t a n y p oin t in t h e p r o c e e d i n g s b e l o w. C ons tru ing w aiver p r incip les l iberall y i n T aylor’s f av o r, i t is p o ss ibl e th atthe f ai l ur e to r ai se the a r g um en t b elo w w as an ov er sig h t a n d n o t a n ob vio u s t ac tic al d ec isi on, an d thu s m er el y a f or f ei ture thatwe re vi ew f or p lain err or . S e e U nited Sta tes v. Jaim es-Jaim es , 40 6 F

. 3d 845, 848-49 (7th Cir. 2005). B ut t h e d istrict cou rt did not err ata l l, a s a cur so r y g l an ce a t th e st atut o r y s en ten ci ng schem e a t the ti m e sh ows. I fthe j ury concl ud ed that10 N o. 09

- 3425 Tayl orwas re sponsibl e fo r 50 orm or e g ra m s o fcr ack, th e statu tory range w ou ld h ave be en 10 years’ to li fe i m pri sonm ent. 21 U .S

. C. § 8 41( b) ( 1) ( A ) ( i i i )

. On the o ther hand , i fi t co ncl ud ed that Tayl orwas re sp onsibl e f or m or e t h an 5 gr am s b u t le ss th an 5 0 , th e ra n ge w ou ld h ave bee n f ro m 5 to 40 yea rs ’ i m pri sonm ent. Id. § 8 41( b) ( 1) ( B)( i ii). In f act, ev en i fthe j ury had fo und that T aylor w as r e s p o ns ibl e for less tha n 5 g r ams, the sta tutor y m axi m um would have been 240 m onths. Id. § 8 41 (b )(1) (C ). Appr e ndipr ohibit s a se nt en ce b ey o nd the m ax i m um al l o wed by th e f ac ts f o und by th e j ur y . But Ta y l o r’s r el i an ce i s m i spl ac ed: hi s se nt en ce o n the dr ug cou nt s w as 180 m ont hs , and thu s p erm itted b y the j ury ver dicto fguil ty re gar dle ss ofthe quanti ty ofdrugs i nv o l ve d. I nde ed, w e ha ve s pec i fi ca l l y he l d tha t th e speci alve rdi ct o f a ju ryco ncer ni ng the am ount o fdrugs i s irr elev ant i n such si tuati ons, bec ause Appr e ndi d oes not affect a sen te n c e b elow the ap p li cab le statut ory m ax im u m sp ec ified in 2 1 U .S.C . § 84 1(b )(1) (C ). U nited Sta tes v. Herna nd ez , 330 F.3d 964 , 980 (7th C ir. 2003). Se c on d , Ta ylo r ar gu es t h at th e d ist ric t c ou rterr ed in applyi ng a tw o- l eve l enhancem ent f oran o bstr ucti on o fj us ti ce . W he n r ev i ewi ng a n o bs tr uct i o n o fj us ti ce e nhancem ent, we re vi ew the und er l yi ng f actualfi nd i ngs, l i k e a l l s uc h fi nd i ng s , f o r c l e a r e r r o r, “ a nd we r e v i ew de no vo whethe r tho se fi nd in g s ade qua te l y s uppo r t th e enhancem ent. ” U ni t e d S t at e s v. Val l ar, 2011 W L 48 8877, at * 11 (7th C i r. , Fe b. 14 , 20 11) ( quoti ng U ni t e d S t at e s v. Ande rs on , 5 80 F

. 3d 639, 64 8 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 9) )

. S ucha n e nh an c em en t is ap p ro p r iat e w h er e a d efe n d an t “ w illfu lly obs tr u c ted o r i m peded o r att em pted to obs tr uct o rN o. 09

- 3425 11
i m pede, the adm i ni str ati on o fj usti ce, ” U.S.S.G

. § 3C1. 1, and perj ury i s a set tl ed exam ple of conduct that m ay w ar ra n t a n en h an c em en t. Vall ar, a t * 11

. A defen dan t com m i ts perj ury “i f, wh i l e under oath, he giv es f al se te st i mo n y c o n c e r n i n ga ma t e r i a l ma t t e r wi th th e wi l l ful in te n t t o p ro vid e fa lse te st im on y, ra th er th an as a re su lt ofco nfusi on, m i stake , or f aul ty m em or y. ” U ni t e d S t at e s v. D un nig a n, 50 7 U. S

. 87, 94 ( 19 93 )

. W he n a defen dan t ob j ec ts to a se n te n c i n g e n h an c em en t a ris in g fro m h is tes ti m ony, “a di str i ct cou rt m ust r evi ew the evi dence an d m ak e i nde pen den t fi nd ings ne ce ss ar y t o e st ab l i sha w i l l ful i m pedim ent t o oro bstr ucti on o fj usti c e, or an at te m p t t o d o t h e s am e, u n d er th e p erj u ry d efin itio n .” Id. at95

. Inth is c as e, th e d ist ric t c ou rtfou n d th a t T ay lor’ s t es tim ony wen t be y o nd a “ g en er alde ni alo fhi s i nv o l ve m en t i n the drug ac ti vi ty” and that he co m m i tte d perj ury by m ak in g “ sp ec ific d en ials reg ar d in g h is in vo lve m e n t . .
. w ith B yr on B lak e an d te st im on y of R ya n Ivo ry an d ot h er s.” Tayl orar gues that thi s fi nd i ng i s i nsufficient under D unn igan to es ta b lis h th at h e c om m itt ed p erj u ry . I t is tr ue tha t th e di st ri ctc o ur t di d no t addr es s ea che l ement ofthe perj u ry d efi ni ti on i n i sol ati on, but D unn igan does not re quir e thi s: the dist ri ct c ourt ’ s dete rm i nati on i s s uffi ci ent i f“the c ou rt m ake s a fi nd i ng o fan o bstr ucti on o f, o r i m pedim ent t o, j usti ce th at enco m passes al l o f the f actualpre dica tes f ora fi nd i ng of perj ury. ” 507 U

. S. at 95. H er e, the dist ri ct c ourt ’ s s tr ai ghtf or w ar d fi nd i ng o f perj ur y s at i sfi es th e defi ni ti o n o fpe rj ur y . The r e i s no doubt thatthe cour t f ound that Tay l or ’ s t est i m on y was fals e. A nd the m ate ri al i ty and w i l l fulne ss ofthe f al se12 N o. 09

- 3425
sta tem ents ar e e stabl i shed w i th the c ou rt ’ s fi nd i ng tha t Tayl or ’ s t est i m ony w ent wel l bey ond a s i m ple d eni alo f gui l t, co ntra dict in g speci fi c detai l s o fthe tes ti m ony of I vor y a nd W oo ds and provi ding an el aboratel y deta i l ed expla nati on o fwh y t h e recor ded phone ca l l s i nvol ved m ar ij uana, r atherthan cra ck. The di str i ct c ourt ’ s f actual fi nd i ngs encom pass al l the el em ents ofperj ury and ther ef or e a dequ at ely supp or t a n enhancem ent f oro bstr ucti on ofj usti ce.

III

. T h e re w as su fficie n t e vid en c e fro m w h ich a j u ry co u ld concl ud e be yond a re aso nabl e doubt that Tayl orknew th at he was ai ding Blak e i n dis tr ibuti ng cr ack on October20 , 20 05. There f or e, we A FFIRM the j ud gm ent o f th e di st r i ct co ur t. The j ur y ’ s co nt r adi ct o r y fi ndi ng s o n the speci al ver dict f or m re gar ding the am ount of drugs i nvol ved ar e i rr el evantbec ause th e u l ti m ate se ntence w as bel ow the m anda to ry m i ni m um f ora convi cti on f o r di st r ibut i nga ny a m o unto fc r ac k

. F ur th er, the di s t r i c tcour tma de s uffi c i e ntf a c t ua l fi nd i ng s t o s up porta tw o- l eve l enhancem ent f oro bstr ucti on o fj usti ce. Theref or e, we A FFIRM the sente nce o fthe dist ri ct c ourt
.

3- 29- 11