### FI LED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT Ma y 2 7, 2005 THO MAS K. KAH N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T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- 1082 9 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D . C. D oc ke t N o. 02- 0070 6- CR -1 -1 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Plaintiff-Appellee, ve rs us JOHN F . T HO MPSO N, III , D ef en dant- Appe llant.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court for the N orthern District of Ge orgia

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ (M ay 2 7, 200 5) Be fo re E D MO N D SO N , Ch ie f Judg e, A N D E RS O N and P RY O R C ir cu it Judg es .2

PE R CU RIA M: John F. Thom

pson , I II, appeals his convi ctions and s entences for c onsp iracy to c om m it m ai l f ra ud, 18 U . S. C. §§ 3 71, 2; m ai l f ra ud, 18 U . S. C. §§ 1 341, 2; an d m one y launde ri ng, 18 U . S. C. §§ 1 957, 2. T hom pson , w ho o w ne d ti m

be r supp ly busin esses in Georgia, wa s charged w ith consp iring to defraud saw m ill com panies by usi ng f al se ti m be r sc al e tic ke ts t o se ll phanto m ti m be r loa ds. N o r ev er sib le e rr o r h a s b e e n s h o w n ; w e a f

f i rm. Thom pson first challenges the district court’ s im posit ion of a two-level enhanc em en t f

or obs tr uc tio n of j ust ic e, U . S. S. G . § 3C 1. 1. H e as se rt s th at he shou ld n ot b e puni she d so le ly f or te sti fy ing in his de fe nse a t tri al . A nd T hom pson m ai nta ins that the dis tr ic t c ourt f ai le d to a ddr es s th e el em en ts o f pe rj ur y w ith su ffi ci en t s pe ci fic it y , cit in g Un it edSta te s v . Dun ni ga n, 1 13 S.Ct . 11 11 (19 93 ). T hom psonf urthe r co nte nds that he did not obs tr uc t j ust ic e w ill fu lly : t es tim ony showed that he cooperated w ith go vernm ent agents and that he m erely wa s c o n f u s e db y th e g o v e rn men t ’s qu e s t i o n s dur i n g h i s t e s t i mo n y. Whe n adi st ric t co ur t i m

po se s an en ha nc em en t fo r ob st ru ct io n o f jus ti ce, we re vie wthe dis tr ic t c ourt’ s f ac tua l f ind ing s f or c le ar e rr or and i ts a ppl ic at ionof

the se nte nc ing gui de lin es to tho se f ac ts d e novo . U nit ed

S ta te s v. U sc ins ki, 369 F. 3d 1 243, 124 6 ( 11th C ir . 200 4) . A lth oughit is pr ef er ab le f or adis tr ic t c ourt t o3

m ak e spe ci fi c fi ndi ngs of f ac t whe n a

ppl y ing U . S. S. G . § 3C 1. 1, ar em an d is unne ce ssary

“ if the r ec or d c le ar ly

r ef le ct s th e ba sis f

or e nhanc em en t. ” I d. T he G uid el ine s auth or iz e a tw o- le ve l e nhanc em en t 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 adm 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 of

the ins tant o ff

en se of c onvi ct ion . ” U . S. S. G . § 3C 1. 1. T he enhanc em en t a

ppl ie s to the c om

m iss ionof

pe rj ur y . U . S. S. G . § 3C 1. 1, c om m en t. (n.4(b)) . The district court enhanced T hom pson ’ s sentence based on the court’ s belief t h at Th o m

p s o n g av e p er

ju re dt es t i m o n y. Th e c o u rt p o i n t edt o Th o m p s o n ’s te sti m ony that he tho ught

that L . B. H ow ar d, apur

porte d lo gge r w ho s old legitim ate loads of tim

ber to T hom

pson , w as a re al person. T he court determ ined that it couldnot “ square” T hom pson ’ s testim ony

with the other evidence at tr ial an d wi th th e jury’ s g ui lt y ve rd ic t o n t he frau d c ou nt s. T he dis tr ic t c ourt c om

m itt ed no e rr or in im posi ng an ob str

uc tio n enhanc em en t. T hom

psonte sti fi ed

that he did

not e nga ge in a co nspi ra cy

w ith Annie Bailey , a

tim ber scale hous e w orker, to defraud Pr octer & G am ble and then W ey er ha eu se r, w ho s uc ce ssi ve ly ow ne d th e tim

be r m ill in Barn es vil le , G eo rg ia , to w hic h T hom

psonsol d th e phanto m

ti m be r loa ds. B ut B ai le y

te sti fi ed that sh eCiti ngUnited States v. Ba nks, 347 F.3d 1266 (11th Cir. 2004), Thomps on also contends that 1 the g overnme nt did not show how his st atements to g overnme nt ag ents during the investig ation wer e a sig nifi c ant h ind

ra nc e to t he inv e sti g atio n. B ut t

he dis tr ic t c ourt

ba se d th e e nh anc e me nt o n it s deter mination that Thompson’s tria l testimony was pe rjured. T hompson’s relianc e on B anks thus is mispl ace d. The gove rnment presented testim ony (1) that Weyerha euser paid Thompson for spe cial pric e 2 contr a c ts th at r e qu ir e d

th e ti mb e r

to c o me f

r o m a s p e c if ic tr a c t o f la n d , an d ( 2 ) th at T hompson 4 ag re ed w ithT hom

psonto pr oduc e fa lse ti m be r tic ke ts i n 19 88, that T hom pson pr ovi de d he r w iththe ne ce ssary m at er ia l and i nf

orm at ionto pr oduc e the f al se tickets, and that T hom

pson paid her in cash and by check for the phanto m

tim ber loa ds. T he r ec or d is suf

fi ci en t t o su

ppor t the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s de te rm inatio n and t o supp ort an ob str

uc tio n e nhanc em en t ba se d onpe rj ur y . S ee D unni gan, 113 S . Ct . at11 16 (st at in g t ha t a wi tn es s co m m it s p erju ry

wit hi n t he m ean in g o f § 3 C1 .1 w he n he te sti fi es f

al se ly about am at er ia l m atte r w iththe w ill fu l i nte nt t o pr ovi de fal se tes ti m on y , rat he r th anas a res ul t o f co nf us io n, m is ta ke , or fa ul ty m em ory ). A nd T hom

psonf ai le d to r eque st m or e spe ci fi c fi ndi ngs on h is p er j ur iou s statem ents: “ [h] aving failed to do so, [he] cannot now com plain to th is court.” United States v. Hubert, 138 F.3d 912, 915 (11t h Cir. 1998 ). 1 Thom pson argues second that the district court im properly excluded proffer ed defense testim ony from Stanley Wheelous, a senior open-m arket tim ber buy er f or Me ad W es tva co ( “ Me ad ”) , about the ti m be r ind ustry ’ s c ust om

of m ixi ng tim be r loa ds o n “ spe ci al pr ic e co ntr ac ts. ” T hom psonc ont en ds tha t the 2violated these c ontrac ts by selling loa ds of timber fr om mix ed tra cts of land. We ne ed not a ddress the g overnme nt’s argument that Wheelous was not qualified a s an expert 3 witness, under Fe d.R.Evid. 702: Thompson c oncede s that Wheelous was not beingintroduced a s an expert witness. 5 governm ent introdu ced evidence suggestin g he fraudulently violated the special pr ic e co ntr ac ts; the dis tr ic t c ourt sh oul d have a llo w ed him to pr es en t a

bout the indu stry custom to show that his con duct was legitim ate. W e re vie wadis tr ic t c ourt’ s e vid en tiary r uli ngs fo r a cl ear ab use of dis cr et ion . U nit ed

S ta te s v. T ino co , 304 F . 3d 1 088, 111 9 ( 11th C ir . 200 2) , c er t. de nie d, 123 S . Ct . 148 4 ( 2003 ). F ed er al Ru le of E vid en ce 701 a llo w s alay pe rs on to t es tif y about opi nio ns o r inf

er en ce s th at

“ ar e (a ) ratio na lly

ba se d onthe pe rc ep tio n of

the w itn es s, ( b) he lpf

ul t o ac le ar

und er standi ng o f the w itn es s’ testim ony or the determ ination of a f act in issue, and (c ) not based on scienti fic, technical, or

other specialized knowledge w ithin the scope of Rule 702.” Fe d. R. E vid . 701 . U nde r thi s ve rs ionof Ru le 701 , lay

opi nio n te sti m ony 3 w itn es se s m ay

te sti fy “ba se d up on the ir

part ic ulari ze d kn ow le dge garn er ed f ro m y ears of e xpe ri en ce w ith in the f

ie ld. ” T am

paBay S hip bui ldi ng & Re pa ir

Co . v. Cedar S hipp ing Co., 320 F.3d 121 3, 1223 (11th Cir. 2003 ). Wheelous had o ver 30 y ears’ experience in the tim ber field, and he had been a b u yer f o r M ea dfo r 1 5 y ea rs . B u tTh o m p s o n as k edWhe el o u s o n l y ab o u tMe ad ’s6

tract tra de policies. T hom pson did no t establish th at Wheelous had p articularize d know le dge of

the spe ci al pr ic e co ntr ac t pr ac tic es of oth er ti m be r co m panie s, inc lud ing P ro ct er

& G am ble and W ey er

ha eu se r, the c om

panie s th at

ope rate d th e Barn es vil le m ill . T he dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t a buse it s di sc re tio n ine xc lud ing Wh e e l o u s ’s t e s t i mo n y. AFFIR MED.