FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P E A LS E LE V EN T HC IRC U IT SEPTEMBER 22, 2005 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. 04- 16314 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C. D o c k e tN o . 0 2 - 0 0 1 3 6 - CR 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 I T T H O M A S B R O W N , 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 So u th e rn D i s tr i c to f A l a b a ma

_________________________ ( S e p t e m b e r 22, 2005) B efo re A N D E R S O N , B IR C H an d D U B IN A , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: A ppe l l a ntK i tT hom a s B r ow n appe a l s hi s 360- m onth s e nt e nc e f orThis is the second time we ha ve considered this ca se. In Brown I , we a ffirme d Brown’s 1 conviction but vaca

ted his sentenceand remanded the c ase on theobstruction of justice enhanc ement. See Un ited S tates v. B ro wn , No. 03-11220, manusc ript op. at 13, 16 (11th Cir. Feb. 9, 2004) (unpublished). We instructe d the district court on remand to make spe cific perjury finding s at resentencing . Id. at 16. The district c ourt complied with our mandate. 2 c ons pi r a c y t o pos s e s s a nd di s tr i but e c r a c k c oc a i ne , i n vi ol a t i on of 21 U . S . C . § 846, a n d p o s s e s s i o n a n d d i s tr i b u t i o n o f c r a c k c o c a i n e , i n v i o l a t i o n o f 2 1 U . S. C. § 841( a ) ( 1) . O n appe a l , B r ow n c ha l l e nge s hi s e nha nc e m e ntf orobs truc t i on of j ust i ce . H e a rgues thatthe po rt i on s of hi s t es t i m on y r ef er ence d b y the di stri ct 1 c our ti n s uppor tof

the e nha nc e m e ntw e r e di s c r e pa nc i e s i n the t e s t i m ony of va r i ous gove rnm e nt“ s ni t c he s , ” a nd the r e w a s no e vi de nc e tha the i nt e nt i ona l l y m i s l e d the di s tr i c tc our torthe j ury . H e c ont e nds the di s tr i c tc our tga ve no e xpl a na t i on of how hi s t e s t i m ony obs truc t e d ori m pe de d the i nve s t i ga t i on orpr os e c ut i on of the o f f e n s e . A ft er U ni t ed Stat es v. B oo ke r , 543 U . S . __, 125 S . C t . 738, 160 L . E d. 2d 621 ( 2005) , w e “ c ont i nue t o r e vi e w the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s appl i c a t i on of the G ui del i nes j ustas w e di d p re - B oo ke r . ” U n ite d S ta te s v . E llis , __ F . 3d __, 2005, N o. 05 -101 50 , 20 05 W L 18 45 4 at*3 (11t h C i r. A ug . 5, 20 05 ). “ T hi s C ou rt r e vi e w s the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s i nt e rpr e t a t i on a nd appl i c a t i on of the s e nt e nc i ng g u i d el i n es de no vo . ” U ni t e d Stat e s v . M

ac hado , 33 3 F . 3d 12 25 , 12 27 (11t h C i r. 20 03 ). W hen revi ew i ng the appl i ca t i on of U . S . S . G . § 3 C 1. 1, w e have det erm i ned3

W he r e the di s tr i c tc ourt m us tm a ke a pa r t i c ul a r i z e d a s s e s s m e ntof the cr edi bi l i ty or dem ea n o r of the defendant , w e a cc ord speci al defe re nce t o the di s tr i c t co u rt ’ s c r e di bi l i ty de t e r m i na t i ons , a nd w e r e vi e w f or c l e a re rr or. . . . C onve r s e l y , w he r e th e d efendant ’ s c r e di bi l i ty or d e m e a n o ris n o t a t is s u e , a n d th e d e f e n d a n t ’ s c o n d u c t c a n b e c le a r ly s e tf or th i n de t a i l e d, non- c onc l us ory f i ndi ngs , w e r e vi e w de novo the d is tr ic t c o u r t’s ap p lic a tio n o f th e e n h a n c e m e n t. U ni t ed Stat es v. A m edeo , 370 F . 3d 1305, 1318 ( 11th C i r . 2004) ( quot a t i ons a nd ci t at i on s om i tt ed). S e c t i on 3C 1. 1 pr ovi de s tha ta tw o- l e ve l e nha nc e m e ntm a y be appl i e d t o the base offe nse l evel i f “ the defendantw i l l ful l y obstruct ed or i m peded, or att em pt ed t o 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 c our s e of the in v e s tig a tio n , p r o s e c u tio n , o rs e n te n c in g .” U .S .S .G . § 3 C 1 .1 . T h e c o m m e n ta ry to § 3C 1. 1 c i t e s “ c om m i tt i ng, s uborni ng, ora tt e m pt i ng t o s uborn pe r j ury ” a nd

“ pr ovi di ng m a t e r i a l l y f

a l s e i nf or m a t i on t o a j udge orm a gi s tr a t e ” a s e xa m pl e s of c o n d u c t to w h ic h th e e n h a n c e m e n t ap p lie s . I d. , c m t . n. 4( b) , ( f

) . P e r j ury i s gi vi ng

“ f a l s e t e s t i m ony c onc e rni ng a m a t e r i a l m a tt e rw i th the w i l l f ul i nt e ntt o pr ovi de fa l se t es t i m on y, ra ther than as are sul tof confusi on , m i st ake, or faul ty m em ory. ” U ni t e d Stat e s v . D unni

gan , 507 U . S . 87, 94, 113 S . C t . 1111, 1116, 122 L . E d. 2d 4 4 5 ( 1 9 9 3 ) . “M a te r ia l” m e a n s “e v id e n c e , f a c t, s ta te m e n t, o rin f

o rm a tio n . . . th a t, 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. “ [T ] he thres ho l d for m at er i al i ty und erthe com m ent ary4

t o § 3C 1. 1 i s ‘ conspi cuou sl y l ow . ’ ” U ni t e d Stat e s v . O de di na , 980 F . 2d 705, 707 ( 11th C i r . 1993) . ( quot i ng U ni t ed Stat es v. D edeker , 96 1 F . 2d 16 4, 16 7 (11 th C i r. 19 92 )) . T h e S u p r e m e C o u r t h a s h e ld th a t i f a d efen d an t o b

j ect s t o a sen t en ce en h an cem en t resu l t i n g f r o m h [ i s] tri al t e s t i m ony , a di s tr i c tc our tm us tr e vi e w the e vi de nc e a nd m a ke i nde pe nde n tf

i ndi ngs ne c e s s a ry t o e s t a bl i s h a w i l l f ul i m pe di m e ntt o or ob struct i on of j ust i ce , or an attem p tt o d o the sa m e, un der the perj ury defi ni t i on w e have s etou t . W hen d oi ng so, i ti s p re fe ra bl e f or a di s tr i c tc our tt o a ddr e s s e a c h e l e m e ntof the a l l e ged pe r

j ury i n a se para t e a nd cl ea r f

i nd i ng . T he di stri ctcourt ’ s det erm i nat i on that enhancem enti s r equire d is suff i ci ent , ho w ever , i f . . . the courtm akes a f i nd i ng of an ob struct i on of, or i m pedi m entt o, j ust i ce that en co m p asses al l o f th e factu al p red i cat es fo r a fi n d i n g o f p erj u ry. D unni gan , 5 0 7 U .S . a t 9 5 , 1 1 3 S . C t. a t 1 1 1 7 ( c ita tio n s o m itte d ) . In th e in stan t cas e, th e d istrict co u rt d id n o t errb y e n h an cin g B ro w n ’s s e n te n c e f

o ro b s tru c tio n o f

ju s tic e . A t r e s e n te n c in g , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t p r o p e r ly e xpl a i ne d the f

a c tua l ba s i s f

ori t s f i ndi ng tha tB r ow n obs truc t e d j us t i c e by of f e r i ng perj ured t es t i m on y a nd i dent i fi ed nu m er ou s s peci fi c e xam pl es of t es t i m on y w hi ch i tde t e r m i ne d t o be know i ngl y f a l s e . T he di s tr i c tc our t ’ s f i ndi ngs a r e s uppor t e d by the r e c or d, a r e s uf

f i c i e nt l y de t a i l e d, a nd c l e a r l y r e f l e c tthe ba s i s f

orthe obs truc t i on o f ju s tic e e n h a n c e m e n t. Se e i d. T h e r e f o r e , w e c o n c lu d e th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t d id n o t e rrb y ap p ly in g th e e n h a n c e m e n t.We DENY B rown’s motion to discharg e counse l and file a supplemental brief

. 2 5 AF F I RME D. 2