Th e H o n o ra b l e J e d S. R ak o f f , o f t h e U n i t e d State s D i s t ri c t C o urt f

o r t h e South e rn * D i s t r i c t o f

N e wY o rk , s i

t t i ng by d e s i g nat i o n. 08-5446- cr U S A v . W illis UN I T E D S T A T E S CO UR T OF AP P E ALS F O R TH E SEC O N D C IR C U IT S UM M ARY ORDER R U LIN GS BYSU M M A R YOR D ER D O N OT HAV E P REC ED EN TIA L EF F EC T. C ITA TION TO A SUMM AR

Y ORDER

F ILE D ON OR

A F TE R JAN UA RY1, 20 07, IS P ERM ITT ED A ND IS GO VE RNE D BY F E DE RAL RULE OF AP P E L L AT E P ROCE DURE 32 . 1 AN D T H I S COURT ’S LOC A L RU LE 3 2.1 .1. W HEN C ITI N G ASU M M A R Y ORD ER

I N AD OC U M EN T F ILED W ITH T HI S COURT , A PA R T Y MUST CIT E EI T HE R TH E F E DE RAL AP P E NDIX OR AN ELEC TR O N IC D A TA BA SE ( WI TH THE N OTA TION“ SU M M A R YOR D ER ”) . AP A R TY C I T I N G AS U M M A R YO RD E R

M U S T S E R

V E AC O P YO FI T O N A N YP A R T YN OT REP RESEN TED BYC OU N SEL. At a s t at e d t e rm o f t he U ni t e d S t at e s C o urt o f

Ap p e a l s f

o rt he S e c o nd

C i r c u i t , he l d at t he Dani el Pat ri ck M o y

n i h an Co urt h o us e, 500 P earl

St reet , i n t h e C i t y o f New Y o rk, o n

t h e 22 day

nd o f Ap r i l , t w o t ho u s and

t e n. P r e s e n t: RALPH K . WI NT E R, RO BERT A . K

A T Z M A NN, Cir cuit Judges , JE D S . RAKOFF, Dis tric t Judge . *

________________________________________________ U N I T E D S T AT E S O F AM E RI C A,

A ppellee , v . No . 08-5446- cr REGINAL D WIL L IS,

Def endant-A ppellant .

________________________________________________-2-

F o r A ppell ee: M ONI CA J. RI CH ARDS , A s s i s t an t U n i t e d State s A t t o rn e y , f or Kat h l e e n M . M e h l t re t t e r, Un i

t e d State s A t t o rn e y f o r t h e W e s t e rn Di s t ri ct o f

New Y o rk, Buf

f al o , NY F or D e f e n d an t- A p p e l l an t: R O B E R T W. W OOD , Ro ch es t er, NY

A p p e a l f rom t h e U n i t e d State s D i s t ri c t C o urt f

o r t h e W e s t e rn

D i s t ri c t o f

N e wY o rk (L ari me r, J .). ON CO NSI DE RA T I ON WHE RE OF , it is h e r e b y ORDERED , ADJ UDG ED , and DECREED t h at t h e j ud gmen t o f t h e Di st r i ct Co ur t b e an d h er eb y i s AFF IRM ED . Def en dan t -appel l an t Re gi n al d W i l li s appea l s f

ro m a j udgmen

t o f t h e Uni t ed St at es Di s t ri ct Co urt f o r t h e W es t ern

Di s t ri ct o f

New Y o rk, en

t ered No v em

b er 6, 2008, s en

t en ci n g h i m t o 130 m o n t h s i n pri s o n f o r sev eral drug- rel at ed o f

f en s es . W i l li s argues t h at t h e co urt err ed i n appl y i n g a t wo -l ev el en h an cem en t f o r o b s t ruct i o n

o f j us t i ce purs uan

t t o Sect i o n

3C1.1 o f t h e Uni t ed St at es S e nt e nc i ng G u i d e l i

ne s . We a s s ume t he p art i e s ’ fam i li ar i t y w i t h t he und e r l

y i ng f a c t s and pro cedural

h i s t o ry o f t h e ca s e. T h e ob s tru c ti on

of j u s ti c e e n h an c e me n t a p p li e s w h e r e a

“ d e f e n d an t w i l l f u l l y ob s tru c te d

or i m p e d e d , o rat t e m

p t e d t o o bs t ru c t o ri

m p e d e , t he a dm

i ni s t r at i o n o f

j u s t i c e w i

t h r e s p e c t t o t he i nve s t i g at i o n, p r o s e c ut i o n, o rs e nt e nc i ng o f t he i ns t ant o f f e ns e . ” U . S . S . G . § 3 C 1 . 1 . T he e n h an c e m e n t c an b e a p p l i e d , a s i

t w a s h e re , d

u e t o p e rj ury , United States v. Dunnigan , 507 U.S. 8 7 , 9 3 - 9 4 ( 1 9 9 3 ) , a s l o ng a s t he d i s t r i c t c o urt f i nd s t hat “t he d e f

e nd ant 1 ) w i l l f

u l l y 2 ) and mate r i a l l y 3 ) c om m i tte d p e r j ury , w h i c h

i s ( a ) th e i

n te n ti on a l ( b ) g i v i n g of f a l s e te s ti mon y ( c ) a s to a m at eri al mat t er, ” Uni ted

Stat es v. Z

agari , 1 1 1 F .3 d

3 0 7 , 3 2 9 (2 d

C i r. 1 9 9 7 ). Th e p e rj ury e n h an c e m e n t d oe s n ot a

p p l y to f a l s e te s ti mon y th at i s a r e s u l t of “ c on f u s i on , m i s tak e , or f a u l ty-3-

me m o ry . ” U . S . S . G . § 3 C1 . 1 c m t . n. 2 ; s ee als o Dunnigan , 5 0 7 U . S . at 9 4 ; United States v. Ke r ley , 5 4 4 F .3 d

1 7 2 , 1 8 1 (2 d

C i r. 2 0 0 8 ). “I t is w e ll s e t t le d t h at u p o n r e v ie wo f a

G u id e li n e s s e n t e n c e t h e int e r

p r e t at io n o f a s e n te n c i ng g u i d e l i n e i s a qu e s ti on of l aw , s u b j e c t to de novo r evi ew , and t h at a se n t enci n g j u d g e’s f i n di n g o f f act may n o t b e di s t urb ed unl es s cl earl y err o n eo us . ” United States v. Vas quez , 389 F. 3 d 6 5 , 6 8 ( 2 d

C i r . 2 0 0 4 ) ( c i

t at i o ns o m

i t t e d ) . Ac c o r d i

ng l y , “[ w ] e g e ne r a l l

y d e f e rt o a s e nt e nc i ng c o urt ’ s fin d ing s a s t o w h at a ‘ s p e ak e rme an

t b y his w o r d s , ’ an d

h o wa lis t e n e rw o u ld

r e a s o n a b ly i n t erpr et t h o s e wo rds.” Un ite d S tates v . Gas k

in , 3 6 4 F. 3 d

4 3 8 , 4 6 6 ( 2 d

C i r . 2 0 0 4 ) , qu o t i

ng Uni ted Stat ed v. Sh ou lb erg , 8 9 5 F . 2 d 8 8 2 , 8 8 4 ( 2 d

C i r . 1 9 9 0 ) . W e r e v i e wth e r e a s on a b l e n e s s of a d i s t ri c t c o urt ’ s s e n

t e n c i n g d e t e rm

i n at i o n s un d e r a

“ d e f e re n t i a l a b u s e -of -d i s c re t i o n

s t an d ard ,” Gall v. Unit ed States , 5 5 2 U . S . 3 8 , 4 1 ( 2 0 0 7 ) , c o ns i d e r i ng bo t h p r o c e d

ur a l and s u bs t ant i ve re a s o n a b l e n e s s , Uni ted

Stat es v. Cavera , 5 5 0 F .3 d 1 8 0 , 1 8 9 (2 d

C i r. 2 0 0 8 ) (e n

b an c ). W i l l i s a l l e g e s th at th e p e r

j ury e n h an c e me n t i m p os e d b y th e d i s tr i c t c ourt v i ol ate s h i s S i xth Ame ndme nt r i g ht t o a

j ury t r i a l , U . S . C o ns t . ame nd . V I , and t he Fi f t h Ame ndme nt r e qu i

r e me nt th at “ [ n ] o p e r s on

s h a l l b e h e l d to an s w e rf

ora c a p i ta l , oroth e rw i s e i

n f amou s c r i me , un l e s s on p r e s e n t me n t o rin d ic t me n

t o f aG r an d

J ury, ” U . S . C o n s t . ame n d . V . I n t h e w ak e o f t h e S u

p r e me C o urt ’s r e me d i a l

d e c i s i o n i

n United States v. B ooker , 543 U.S . 220 (2005) , t h i s Co urt det erm i n ed t h at “ t h e t r a d it io n a l a

ut h o r it y o f as e n

t e n c ing ju d g e t o fin d

a ll fa c t s r e le v an

t t o s e n t e n c ing w ill en co un t er n o Sixt h

A men dmen t o b j ect i o n , ” United States v. Cros by , 3 9 7 F .3 d 1 0 3 , 1 1 2 (2 d

C i r. 2 0 0 5 ) . B e c a

u s e W i l l i s ’ s c on

v i c ti on on C oun ts I I an d I I I of th e i n d i c tme n t e x p os e d h i m to a s t at ut o ry max i m um s en t en ce o f 40 years , 21 U.S . C. § 841( b )( 1)( B), h i s act ual s en t en ce o f 70 m o n t h s a s t o t h o s e c o un

t s p o s e s n o Si

xt h A me n dme n t d i f f i c u l t y . In a d d i t i o n , t h e Su

p re me C o urt-4-

h as det erm

i n ed t h at wh en

a co urt en

h an ces a s en

t en ce due t o part i cul ar co n duct b ut t h e s en t en ce r e ma i ns w i t hi n t he G u i d e l i

ne s r ang e , t he s e nt e nc e i s o nl y f o rt he und e r l

y i ng o f f e ns e ; as u bs e qu e nt p r os e c uti on

f or th e s ame e n

h an c i n g c ond u c t d oe s n ot c on s ti

tute d ou b l e j e op ar dy

un d e rth e F i f

th A me n dme n t . See W itte v. Unit ed States , 5 1 5 U . S . 3 8 9 , 4 0 3 - 0 4 ( 1 9 9 5 ) ; Un ite d S tates v . Gr is an ti , 116 F . 3d 984, 987 (2d Ci

r. 1997). If

t h e co n duct s uppo rt i

n g t h e en h an cem en t i s n o t an “ o f f en s e” f o rd o u b l e j eo p ar dy

p ur p o ses, i t i s al so n o t a “cr i

me” sub j ec t t o t h e Fi f

t h A mendment ’s p r e s e n tme n t r e qu i r e m e n t. Wi l l i s a l s o ar g u e s t hat t he d i s t r i c t c o urt e rr e d i n f i nd i ng f a c t s und e ra

“c l e arand co n v i n ci n g” s t an dard r at h er t h an

“b ey o n d a reas o n ab l e do ub t . ” T h is C o urt h a s e x p lic it ly d e t e rmin e d , h o w e v e r , t h at “ [ j] u d ic ia l aut h o r it y t o fi

n d fa c t s r e le v an

t t o s e n t e n c in g b y a pr epo n der an ce o f

t h e ev i den ce sur v i

v es B ooker . ” Un ite d S

tates v . Gar

c ia , 413 F . 3d 201, 220 n .1 5 (2 d C i r. 2 0 0 5 ). Thi s s t an d ard

a p p li e s t o o b s t ru c t i o n

o f j u s t i c e e n h an c e me n t s . See U nited Sta te s v . Sali m , 5 4 9 F .3 d

6 7 , 7 5 (2 d

C i r. 2 0 0 8 ). Fi na l l y , w e ne e d

no t d e t e rm

i ne w he t he rWil li s i s c ha l l e ng i ng t he p r o c e d

ur a l o rs u bs t ant i ve r e a s o n a b le n e s s o f h is s e n

t e n c e , a s e it h e rar g ume n

t is un av a ili

n g . T h e d is t r ic t c o urt s p e c ific a lly f o un d t h at W i l l i s co m

m i t t ed perj ury

b eca us e h e “ gav e f

al s e t es t i mo n y un der o at h

co n cerni n g a mat er i al mat t erwit h

t h e w i l l f u l i n t ent t o . . . o b st ru ct j u st i ce . ” T h e c o urt ad d edt h at W i l li s’s te s ti m on y “w a s c r a f

te d . . . w i th th e ob j e c ti v e to f ool th e j ury , to g e t th e j ury

to a c c e p t h i s v e r s i on and no t t he G o ve rnme nt ’s ve r s i o n and no t t he ve r s i o n s u

p p o rt e d by t he e vi d e nc e . ” I n a d d i

t i o n, t h e c o urt s p e c ific a lly

id e n t ifie d s e v e r a l s t at e me n

t s it fo un d

t o b e mis le a d ing an d

c it e d e v id e n c e in t h e r e c o r d

in d ic at ing t h e y w e r e n o t t rut h fu l. W e h av e d e t e rmin e d

t h at w h e n , a s h e r e , a

d is t r ic t c o urt fin d s t h at t h e d e fe n d an t h a s c le ar ly-5-

l i e d , i t “ne e d d o no t hi ng mo r e . . . t han p o i

nt t o t he o bvi o u s li e a

nd f i nd t hat t he d e f

e nd ant kn o wi n gl y made a f al s e s t at em

en t o n a m at eri al mat t er. ” United States v. Williams , 79 F . 3d 334, 3 3 7 - 3 8 ( 2 d

C ir . 1 9 9 6 ) . W illis c o n

t e n d s t h at “ye ar s o f dru g a d d ic t io n ” c o u ld h av e a ffe c t e d

h is percept i o n , mem

o ry , an d s en s e o f

reali t y , s ugges t i

n g t h at h i s f

al s e t es t i mo n y was n o t wi l l f

ul b ut rat h er t h e “resul

t o f co n f us i o n , m i s t ake, o r f

aul t y mem o ry . ” Th e di s t ri ct co urt s quarel y rej ect ed t h is p o s s ibilit y

in it s o p inio n , an d

t h is C o urt d e fe r s t o a

s e n t e n c ing c o urt ’ s a s s e s s me n t o f a d e f e n d an t ’ s t e s t i mo n y . Se eGa s k

in , 3 6 4 F . 3 d

at 4 6 6 . A s t o s u

b s t an t iv e un r e a s o n a b le n e s s , w e w ill ov e rturn a d i s tr i c t c ourt’ s s e n

te n c e on l y i n “ th os e f e wc a s e s th at . . . d ama g e th e a dm i n i s tr ati on of j ust i ce b ecause t h e sen

t en ce i m po sed was sh o cki

n gl y h i gh , sh o cki

n gl y l o w, o ro t h erwi se un s uppo rt ab l e as a m

at t er o f l aw.” United States v. R igas , 5 8 3 F .3 d 1 0 8 , 1 2 3 (2 d

C i r. 2 0 0 9 ). G i v e n th e e v i d e n

t f a l s i ty of n ume r ou s s tate me n

ts W i l li s ma d e at tr i a l , th e d i s tr i c t c ourt d i d n ot a b u s e i ts d i s c r e ti on

i n i m p os i n g th e s e n

te n c e e n h an c e me n t. W e h av e c o n s i d e re d

a l l o f W i l l i s ’ s arg ume n

t s an d f i n d t h e m t o b e w i t h o ut me ri

t . A cco rdi n gl y , we A F F I RM th e j u d g me n t of th e d i s tr i c t c ourt. F O R TH E C O U R T: CA T HE RI NE O’HA GA

N W OLF E , CLERK