FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEVEN T HC IRC U IT SEPTEMBER 14, 2006 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. 05- 14985 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C. D o c k e tN o . 0 5 - 0 0 0 2 7 - CR- 3 - RV 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 K A Y T R E N A J . F R A N C I S , 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 orthe N or the rn D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( S e p t e m b e r 14, 2006) B efo re A N D E R S O N , B L A C K an d B A R K E T T , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: K ay tre na J. F ra nci s app ea l s her24 -m on th t erm of prob at i on for r es i st i ng an2

o f f ic e r , 1 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 1 , a n d d is o r d e r ly c o n d u c t, 1 8 U .S .C . § § 7 , 1 3 , F la . S ta t. A n n . § 8 7 7 .0 3 , a r g u in g th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t f a ile d to m a k e s u f

f ic ie n t f in d in g s to s uppor tas e nt e nc e e nha nc e m e ntf orobs truc t i on of

j us t i c e a nd tw o c ondi t i ons of h er p ro b at i o n are u n co n st i tu t i o n al d el eg at i o n s o f j u d i ci al au th o ri ty. F i r s t , F r a nc i s a r gue s tha tthe di s tr i c tc our tdi d notm a ke s uf f i c i e ntf i ndi ngs c onc e rni ng he rs e nt e nc e e nha nc e m e ntf orobs truc t i on of

j us t i c e . T he s t a nda r ds f or r e vi e w i ng the appl i c a t i on of the S e nt e nc i ng G ui de l i ne s be f or e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. B oo ker, 54 3 U . S . 22 0, 12 5 S . C t . 73 8, 16 0 L . E d. 2d 62 1 (20 05 ), appl y a ft eri tas w ell. U n it ed S tates v . C ra w fo rd , 4 0 7 F .3 d 1 1 7 4 , 1 1 7 8 (1 1 th C ir. 2 0 0 5 ). “A se nt enci ng courtun der B oo ker s t i l l m ustconsi der the G ui del i nes, and, such consi dera t i on nece ss ar i l y r equi re s the se nt enci ng courtt o cal cul at e the G ui del i nes s e nt e nc i ng r a nge i n the s a m e m a nne ra s be f or e B ooke r . ” I d. a t1178- 79 ( c i t a t i on om i tt e d) . W e r e vi e w adi s tr i c tc our t ’ s f a c tua l f i ndi ngs r e ga r di ng the i m pos i t i on of an en h an ce m en t fo r o b stru ctio n o f ju stice f o r c learer ro r a n d th e d istrict co u rt’s appl i c a t i on of

the f a c tua l f i ndi ngs t o the gui de l i ne s de novo. U ni t e d S t a t e s v. M assey, 4 4 3 F . 3 d 8 1 4 , 8 1 8 (1 1 th C i r. 2 0 0 6 ). “ W h ere . . . th e d i stri ctco u rtm u st m a k e ap a r tic u la r iz e d a s s e s s m e n t o f th e c r e d ib ility o rd e m e a n o ro f th e d e f e n d a n t, s u c h a s wh e n ap p l y i n g th e o b s tru c t i o n o f j u s t i c e e n h a n c e m e n tf

o rp e r j u ry , we a c c o r d s p e c i a l d e f

e r e n c e t o th e d i s tr i c tc o u r t ’ s c r e d i b i l i ty d e t e rm i n a t i o n s , a n d we3

re vi ew for c l ea r e rr or. ” U ni t ed S t at es v. B anks, 34 7 F . 3d 12 66 , 12 69 (11th C i r. 20 03 ). T ho ug h the di stri ctcourtshou l d m ake s peci fi c f i nd i ng s “ as t o eac h al l eged in s ta n c e o f

o b s tru c tio n b y id e n tif

y in g th e m a te r ia lly f

a ls e s ta te m e n ts in d iv id u a lly . . . . ag e n e r a l f

in d in g th a t a n e n h a n c e m e n t is w a rr a n te d s u f f ic e s if it e n c o m p a s s e s a ll of the f a c tua l pr e di c a t e s ne c e s s a ry f orape r j ury f i ndi ng. ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. S i ngh, 291 F . 3d 756, 763 ( 11th C i r . 2002) ( quot a t i ons a nd c i t a t i ons om i tt e d) . “ F our e l e m e nt s m us tbe pr e s e nti n or de rf orac our tt o m a ke af

i ndi ng tha tade f

e nda nt pe r j ur e d hi m s e l f: ( 1) the t e s t i m ony m us tbe unde roa th ora f f i rm a t i on; ( 2) the t e s t i m ony m us tbe f

a l s e ; ( 3) the t e s t i m ony m us tbe m a t e r i a l ; a nd ( 4) the t e s t i m ony m u s t b e g iv e n w ith th e w illf u l in te n t to p r o v id e f

a ls e te s tim o n y a n d n o t a s ar e s u lt o f am is ta k e , c o n f

u s io n , o rf

au lty m e m o ry .” S in g h , 2 9 1 F .3 d a t 7 6 3 n .4 .

“ M a t e r i a l i ty ” unde rthi s G ui de l i ne i s “ e vi de nc e , f a c t , s t a t e m e nt , ori nf

orm a t i on, that , i f bel i eved, w ou l d t end t o i nfl uence or af fe ctthe i ss ue un der det erm i nat i on . ” U . S . S . G . § 3 C 1 . 1 cm t . n . 6 . E v en i f a d i stri ctco u rtfai l s t o m ak e sp eci fi c fi n d i n g s,

“ a r em and i s unn ec es sa ryi f the re cord cl ea rl y r ef l ec t s the basi s f

or enhancem ent . ” S e e U n ite d S ta te s v . U s c in s k i, 3 6 9 F .3 d 1 2 4 3 , 1 2 4 6 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) . P ursuantt o U . S . S . G . § 3 C 1. 1, a def endantm ayqu al i fyfor atw o-l evel enhancem enti f he or s he “ w i l l ful l y obstruct ed or i m peded, or att em pt ed t o o bstruct4

ori 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 c our s e of the i nve s t i ga t i on, p r o s e c u t i o n , o rs e n t e n c i n g o f th e i n s t a n to f

f e n s e o f c o n v i c t i o n . . . . ” U. S . S . G. §3C 1. 1. O ne m a y obs truc tori m pe de j us t i c e by “ c om m i tt i ng, s uborni ng, or att em pt i ng t o sub orn p er j ury. ” U . S . S . G . § 3 C 1. 1, cm t . n. 4(b). P er j ury has been de f i ne d, f orthe purpos e of

appl y i ng thi s e nha nc e m e nt , a s “ f a l s e t e s t i m ony co n cern i n g a m at eri al m att er 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 est i m o n y, r a the rtha n a s ar e s ul tof c onf us i on, m i s t a ke , orf

aul ty m e m ory . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. D un ni gan, 50 7 U . S . 87 , 94 , 11 3 S . C t . 11 11 , 11 16 , 12 2 L . E d. 2d 44 5 (19 93 ). T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s g e n e r a l f in d in g th a t F r a n c is c o m m itte d p e r ju ry is suff i ci entt o sup po rtthe appl i ca t i on of the enhancem ent . F i rs t , F ra nci s t es t i fi ed un der oath ather tri al . S ec on d, the re cord i s s uffi ci entt o sho w thatm any of her s t a t e m e nt s w e r e f

a l s e c om pa r e d w i th the t e s t i m ony , w hi c h the c our t , c ons trui ng the e v id e n c e c o n s is te n tly w ith th e ju ry ’s v e r d ic t a n d f in d in g s , b e lie v e d to b e tru e . F r a n c is te s tif

ie d th a t s h e d id n o t: p o in t a t M a jo rY o u n g a n d th r e a te n h e rw h ile t a l ki ng t o L i e ut e na ntE s kr i dge ; di d notr e f us e t o a l l ow of

f i c e r s t o ha ndc uf

f he r ; a nd d i d n o tfo l d h er arm s i n resp o n se t o th ei r req u est s t o tu rn aro u n d , fl ai l h er arm s, r e p e a te d ly s c r e a m “r ap e ” a n d “h a r a s s m e n t,” o rtry to b ite T e c h . S e r g e a n t D illo n . F r a nc i s ’ s t e s t i m ony w a s di r e c t l y c ontr a di c t e d a ttr i a l by E s kr i dge , M a s t e rS e r ge a nt S h ep ard , an d D i l l o n ’ s t est i m o n y th atsh e tri ed t o b i t e D i l l o n , fl ai l ed h er arm s,5

f ol de d he ra rm s t o m a ke i tdi f f i c ul tt o c uf

f he r , r e f us e d t o turn a r ound t o be c uf f e d, re peat edl y s cr ea m ed “ rape” a nd “ hara ss m ent , ” a nd threa t ened Y ou ng . A s the j ury ha d t o be l i e ve a tl e a s ts om e of the be ha vi oraboutw hi c h E s kr i dge , S he pa r d, a nd D i l l o n t est i fi ed reg ard i n g th e resi st i n g an d d i so rd erl y co n d u ctch arg es, th en atl east s o m e o f F r a n c is ’s te s tim o n y , w h ic h la r g e ly c o n tr a d ic te d th a t te s tim o n y , is f a ls e . T hi r d, F r a nc i s ’ s f

a l s e t e s t i m ony aboutnotr e s i s t i ng a rr e s torc onduc t i ng he r s e l f i n a di sorder l y m anner w as m at er i al as the preci se i ss ues und erconsi dera t i on attri al w e r e w h e th e rF r a n c is ’s c o n d u c t w a s d is o r d e r ly a n d w h e th e rs h e r e s is te d a rr e s t. L a s tly , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t n o te d th a t F r a n c is ’s te s tim o n y w a s p la g u e d w ith contra di ct i on s w i th the other tri al evi dence. H ert es t i m on y c on si st ent l y m ai nt ai ned thatshe w as no tre spon si bl e f or the i ni t i al al t er ca t i on , i t s e sc al at i on , or her e ventual f o r c ib le a rr e s t. B e c au s e h e rte s tim o n y w a s c o n s is te n t, it c a n n o t b e s a id to th e r e s u lt of c onf us i on oram i s t a ke . F ur the r , be c aus e s he t e s t i f i e d t o ac om pl e t e s e r i e s of ev en t s, h er t est i m o n y d o es n o tap p ear t o b e th e resu l to f a fau l ty m em o ry. T h u s, the di stri ctcourt ’ s f

i nd i ng s c on ce rni ng the ob struct i on of j ust i ce enhancem entw er e no tcl ea rl y e rr on eous. A cc ordi ng l y, w e a ff i rm on thi s i ss ue. N e x t, F r a n c is a r g u e s th a t th e c o n d itio n s o f h e rp r o b a tio n r e q u ir in g h e rto un dergo m ent al heal th cou nsel i ng and n ot i fythi rd part i es of the ri sks a ss oci at ed w i th h ercr i m i nal re cord, bo th atthe di sc re t i on of her probat i on offi ce r, ar e6

i m pr ope rde l e ga t i ons of j udi c i a l author i ty . B e c aus e F r a nc i s di d notobj e c tt o the cond i t i on s of hersupervi se d rel ea se , w e w i l l on l y r ever se for pl ai n err or. U ni t ed S t a t e s v. Z i nn, 321 F . 3d 1084, 1088 ( 11 th C i r . 2003) . T o s a t i s f y the pl a i n- e rr or s t a nda r d, w e m us tf

i nd tha t( 1) the di s tr i c tc our tc om m i tt e d “ e rr or , ” ( 2) the e rr or w a s pl a i n orobvi ous , a nd ( 3) the e rr or“ a f f e c t e d s ubs t a nt i a l r i ght s ” i n tha tthe e rr or w a s pr e j udi c i a l a nd notha rm l e s s . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. O l a no, 507 U . S . 725, 730- 32, 113 S . C t . 1770, 1776, 123 L . E d. 2d 508 ( 1993) . A n e rr ori s notpl a i n “ unl e s s the error i s c l ea r und ercurr entl aw . ” I d. at73 4, 11 3 S . C t . at17 77 . If these cr i t er i a a re m et , th i s C o u rtm ay, i n i t s d i scret i o n , co rrectth e p l ai n erro r i f i t“ seri o u sl y affect[s] the f a i rne s s , i nt e gr i ty , orpubl i c r e put a t i on of j udi c i a l pr oc e e di ngs . ” I d. a t736, 113 S .C t. a t 1 7 7 9 ( in te rn a l q u o ta tio n s a n d c ita tio n o m itte d ) . In U ni t ed S t at es v. H ea th, 41 9 F . 3d 13 12 (11th C i r. 20 05 ), the di stri ctcourt i m pos e d ac ondi t i on of

s upe rvi s e d r e l e a s e tha tr e a d a s f ol l ow s : “ T he de f

e nda nt s h a ll p a r tic ip a te if

a n d a s d ir e c te d b y th e p r o b a tio n o f f ic e in s u c h m e n ta l h e a lth prog ra m s a s r ec om m ended b y apsyc hi atri stor psyc ho l og i stt o i ncl ud e r es i dent i al treatm en t , o u tp at i en ttreatm en t , an d p sych o tro p i c m ed i cat i o n s as p rescri b ed b y a m e di c a l doc t or . ” I d. a t1314. W e f ound the pr ovi s i on t o be a n i m pr ope rde l e ga t i on t o the pr ogr a m pr of

e s s i ona l s of

the s upe rvi s i on of

H e a th’ s pa r t i c i pa t i on i n the m ent al heal th p rogram , as w el l as an i m prop erdel egat i on t o the prob at i on offi ce r7

of the ul t i m a t e de c i s i on of w he the rornotH e a th w a s t o pa r t i c i pa t e a ta l l i n the prog ra m . Id. at13 14 -15. B ec ause re qu i ri ng thata def endantpart i ci pat e i n m ent al he a l th c ouns e l i ng i s “ unque s t i onabl y aj udi c i a l f unc t i on, ” the e rr orw a s pl a i n. I d. a t1315. F ur the r , i ta f

f e c t e d H e a th’ s s e nt e nc e be c aus e i ts ur e l y w oul d notha ve be e n the s a m e butf

orthe e rr or . I d. a t1315- 16. A ddi t i ona l l y , a“ pl a i nl y e rr one ous co n d i t i o n o f su p erv i sed rel ease w i l l i n ev i t ab l y affect sub st an t i al ri g h t s, as a d e f e n d a n t w h o f

a ils to m e e t th a t c o n d itio n w ill b e s u b je c t to f u r th e rin c a r c e r a tio n .” U ni t ed S t at es v. P ruden, 39 8 F . 3d 24 1, 25 1 (3d C i r. 20 05 ). F r a nc i s ’ s i ni t i a l c ondi t i ons of pr oba t i on pr ovi de d: “ A s de e m e d ne c e s s a ry by th e P r o b a tio n O f

f ic e r , th e d e f

e n d a n t s h a ll p a rtic ip a te in ap r o g r a m o f m e n ta l h e a lth tr e a tm e n t.” T h is p r o v is io n le f t th e d e c is io n o f

w h e th e rF r a n c is p a r tic ip a te in coun se l i ng t o h erprob at i on offi ce r. A s s uch, i tdel egat ed autho ri ty t o requi re m e nt a l he a l th c ouns e l i ng, a n author i ty tha tbe l ongs t o the c our t , nott o the p r o b a tio n o f

f ic e r . T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t p la in ly e rr e d in im p o s in g th e c o n d itio n . H ow ever , af

t erfi nd i ng thatF ra nci s vi ol at ed other probat i on cond i t i on s, the di stri ct c our tor de r e d F r a nc i s t o pa r t i c i pa t e i n m e nt a l he a l th a nd a nge rm a na ge m e nt coun se l i ng arra ng ed by the prob at i on offi ce r. A s the di stri ctcourthas order ed coun se l i ng , the deci si on no l on ger r es t s w i th the prob at i on offi ce r a nd no l on ger ru n s a f o u l o f H e a th .8

T urni ng t o F r a nc i s ’ s s e c ond a r gum e ntaboutthe i m pr ope rde l e ga t i on of autho ri ty t o the prob at i on offi ce r, w e hol d thatthe di stri ctcourtdi d n oterr. In U ni t ed S t at es v. N as h, 43 8 F . 3d 13 02 , 13 04 (11th C i r. 20 06 ), the di stri ctcourt i m p o sed th e sam e co n d i t i o n o f su p erv i sed rel ease th atread as fo l l o w s: A s di re ct ed by the prob at i on offi ce r, the defendantshal l no t i fythi rd part i es of ri sks thatm aybe occas i on ed by the defendant ’ s c ri m i nal r e c or d orpe r s ona l hi s t ory orc ha r a c t e r i s t i c s a nd s ha l l pe rm i tthe pr oba t i on of

f i c e rt o m a ke s uc h not i f

i c a t i ons a nd c onf

orm the d e f e n d a n t’s c o m p lia n c e w ith s u c h n o tif ic a tio n r e q u ir e m e n t. W e h e ld th a t th e p r o v is io n w a s n o t a n im p r o p e rd e le g a tio n o f aju d ic ia l f

u n c tio n to apr oba t i on of

f i c e r . I d. a t1306. T hough the pr oba t i on of f i c e rdi r e c t s “ w he n, w h ere, an d t o w h o m n o t i ce m u stb e g i v en , ” h e h ad n o co n tro l o v er w h eth er N ash ha d t o pr ovi de not i c e a ta l l . I d. T he s t a nda r d c ondi t i on onl y di r e c t e d the pr oba t i on of f i c e rt o ove r s e e N a s h’ s s e nt e nc e , notde t e rm i ne i t . I d. T he c ondi t i on of F ra nci s’ s probat i on concerni ng no t i fi ca t i on of thi rd part i es as t o h ercr i m i nal hi st ory w as i dent i ca l t o the cond i t i on anal yz ed i n N as h. F urther, the gu i del i nes s pe c i f i c a l l y r e c om m e nd the i nc l us i on of a n i de nt i c a l s t a nda r d c ondi t i on. T hus , the di s tr i c tc our tdi d note rri n i nc l udi ng the s t a nda r d c ondi t i on a s ac ondi t i on of Fr a n c i s ’ s p r o b a t i o n . A c c o r d i n g l y , w e a f f i rm. AF F I RME D.