FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEV EN T HC IRC U IT JUNE 30, 2008 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK

Honora ble Robert L . Hinkle, United States District Chief Ju d ge for the N orthern D istrict * of F lorida, sitting by

designation. [ 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. 07- 12107

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 06 -002 56 -C R -4 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 M A Y I C O A L P H O N S O G O L D E N , a .k .a . M a jic o G o ld e 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 S o u th e rn D is tr ic t o f G e o r g ia

_________________________ ( Ju n e 30, 2008) B ef ore B IR C H and F A Y , C i rc ui tJudg es , and H IN K L E , D i stri ctJudg e. * P E R C U R I A M:At the time Golden wa s found in possession of the fire arm, hewas on probation for driving 1 with a suspended license, no proof of i nsuranc e, operatinga vehic le with an improper tag , and loud mus ic , f or whic h h ewa s re quire d topa y fine s. 2 M a y i c o A l phons o G ol de n appe a l s hi s c onvi c t i on a nd 90- m onth s e nt e nc e f or p o s s e s s io n o f

af ir e a rm b y ac o n v ic te d f

e lo n , in v io la tio n o f

1 8 U .S .C . § 9 2 2 ( g ) ( 1 ) . G ol de n a r gue s tha t( 1) hi s pl e aw a s e i the rc ondi t i ona l ornotknow i ng a nd v o lu n ta ry a n d th a t h e o u g h t to b e ab le to ap p e a l th e c o u r t’s ru lin g a s to h is e n tr ap m e n t- b y - e s to p p e l d e f e n s e ; ( 2 ) th e c o u r t e rr e d in c o n s id e r in g th e c r e d ib ility of hi s t e s t i m ony r e ga r di ng hi s e ntr apm e nt - by - e s t oppe l de f e ns e a ts e nt e nc i ng; a nd (3) the courtfurther e rr ed i n enh anci ng hi s s ent ence base d o n o bstruct i on of j ust i ce a n d f a ilu r e to a c c e p t r e s p o n s ib ility . W e A F F I R M . I . B AC KG RO UN D A f e d e r a l g r a n d ju ry c h a r g e d th a t G o ld e n , ac o n v ic te d f e lo n , k n o w in g ly pos s e s s e d af

i r e a rm on 27 D e c e m be r2005. I n the c our s e of the c a s e , the go vernm entfi l ed a m ot i on i n l i m i ne, se eki ng t o p re ventG ol den from ar gu i ng that th e p o li ce ac ted im p ro p er ly to w ar d h im . G o ld en o p p o se d th e g o v er n m en t’ s r e q u e s t, to th e e x te n t th a t it w o u ld p r e v e n t h im f r o m d e m o n s tr a tin g th a t h is s ta te prob at i on offi ce r had autho ri ze d h i m t o sel l the gu n i n q uest i on i n o rdert o p ay d o w n h is o u ts ta n d in g s ta te f in e s , a n d h e r e q u e s te d aju ry c h a r g e o n e n tr ap m e n t- 1 by-e st op pel . P art i al l y gra nt i ng the go vernm ent ’ s m ot i on , the di stri ctcourt3

d e t e rm i n e d th a tGo l d e n ’ s a r g u m e n t“ a m o u n t [ e d ] t o a n i rr e l e v a n t‘ m i s t a k e o f l a w’ d e f e n s e ,” a n d h e ld th a t e v id e n c e o f th e s ta te p r o b a tio n o f

f ic e r ’s s ta te m e n ts to G ol de n w a s i na dm i s s abl e unde rF e de r a l R ul e of E vi de nc e 402, be c a us e i tw a s not r e le v a n t. R 1 - 3 9 a t 2 . B as ed on the di stri ctcourt ’ s rul i ng , and u nd erthe as sum pt i on thatthe court al so w ou l d d eny hi s r equest ed j ury i nstruct i on on entrapm entby es t op pel , G ol den e nt e r e d i nt o apl e aa gr e e m e ntw i th the gove rnm e nt . T he pl e aa gr e e m e ntdi d not p ro v i d e th ath e co u l d ap p eal th e d i stri ctco u rt ’ s o rd er d en yi n g th e en trap m en t -b ye s t oppe l de f

e ns e . D ur i ng the pl e ahe a r i ng, di s c us s i on of appe a l w a s l i m i t e d t o the fol l ow i ng . In the course of expl ai ni ng G ol den’ s r i gh t s pri or t o a pl ea , the di stri ct courtt ol d G ol den thatm any pri soners re ce i ve the as si st ance of a j ai l ho use l aw ye r in f ilin g “m o tio n [ s ] f

o ra n ap p e a l,” to w h ic h G o ld e n r e p lie d “I ’m n o t g o in g to f ol l ow w i th tha t . ” R 2 a t25. T he c our ta l s o t ol d G ol de n tha thi s c ha nc e s of w i nn i ng an appeal w er e notverygo od , and G ol den repl i ed, “ Y es , si r. I w as n’ teven g o in g to w a s te y o u rtim e w ith n o th in g lik e th a t, s ir .” I d . T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t, n e v e r th e le s s , in f

o rm e d G o ld e n th a t h e d id h a v e th e r ig h t to a n ap p e a l. A tthe sa m e hea ri ng , G ol den t es t i fi ed t o the fol l ow i ng . O n 2 7 D ec em ber 2 0 0 5 , h e r e c e iv e d ac a ll f r o m h is s ta te p r o b a tio n o f f ic e r , w h o to ld h im to b r in g in $5 00 , or she w ou l d h ave hi m arre st ed. L at erthatday, G ol den and hi s m other w er e4

c le a n in g th e irh o u s e , a n d th e y d is c o v e r e d ar if le in ac lo s e t. G o ld e n c a lle d h is p r o b a tio n o f

f ic e ra n d a s k e d h e rto c o m e p ic k it u p , b u t s h e to ld h im to s e ll th e r if le a nd us e the m one y t ow a r ds hi s out s t a ndi ng f i ne s . G ol de n t ook the r i f l e t o a paw nsho p, w here he i nform ed the paw nsho p em pl oyee thathe w as a c on vi ct ed fel o n . T h e em p l o yee t o l d G o l d en th atth e p aw n sh o p co u l d n o tb u y th e ri fl e u n l ess it o b ta in e d p e rm is s io n f r o m G o ld e n ’s p r o b a tio n o f f ic e r . G o ld e n c a lle d h is p r o b a tio n o f

f ic e r , w h o a g a in g a v e h im p e rm is s io n to s e ll th e g u n . H e s o ld th e r if le a nd t ook the $25 t o hi s pr oba t i on of f i c e r . B a s e d upon G ol de n’ s t e s t i m ony , the d is tr ic t c o u r t f

o u n d th a t th e r e w a s af

a c tu a l b a s is f

o rth e p le aa n d a c c e p te d it. F ol l ow i ng G ol den’ s gui l ty pl ea , the di stri ctcourtent er ed a w ri tt en order, cl ar i fy i ng i t s e ar l i errul i ng on the go vernm ent ’ s m ot i on i n l i m i ne. N ot i ng that entrapm entby es t op pel i s a n except i on t o the generalrul e thati gn orance of the l aw i s no d ef ense , i tneverthel es s f

ou nd thatthe except i on w as no tavai l abl e t o G ol den un der E l eventh C i rc ui tprec edent , because i tw as hi s s t at e probat i on offi ce r, ra ther th a n af e d e r a l a g e n t, w h o h a d e rr o n e o u s ly to ld h im to s e ll th e g u n . N otw i ths t a ndi ng thi s rul i ng, the c our ts t a t e d tha t , “ [ i ] f G ol de n’ s a l l e ga t i ons a r e true

. . . i thardl y s ee m s c orre ctt o charge hi m w i th a cr i m e, ” a s “ st at e probat i on offi ce rs a c t a s q u a s i- lia is o n s to th e f e d e r a l c r im in a l s y s te m .” R 1 - 4 2 .5

T he pres ent ence i nv es t i gat i on re po rt(“ P S I” ) c al cul at ed G ol den’ s t ot al a d ju s te d o f f e n s e le v e l a s 2 2 , w h ic h in c lu d e d atw o - le v e l e n h a n c e m e n t, p u r s u a n t to U . S . S . G . § 3C 1. 1 ( 2006) , f orobs truc t i on of

j us t i c e , ba s e d on the pr oba t i on offi ce r’ s c on cl usi on thatG ol den h ad perj ured hi m se l f duri ng the pl eahear i ng w hen h e te s tif ie d th a t h is s ta te p r o b a tio n o f f ic e rh a d g iv e n h im p e rm is s io n to s e ll th e g u n . F or the sa m e r ea son, the prob at i on offi ce r c on cl ud ed thatG ol den w as no tent i t l ed t o an acce pt ance -of- re spon si bi l i ty r educt i on un der U . S . S . G . § 3 E 1. 1. G ol den obj e c t e d t o both of

the s e a s pe c t s of

the c a l c ul a t i on. A tth e sen t en ci n g h eari n g , G o l d en fi rstarg u ed th ati tw as a d u e p ro cess v io la tio n f

o rth e d is tr ic t c o u r t to h e a re v id e n c e o n th e is s u e o f w h e th e rh is s ta te prob at i on offi ce r had gi ven h i m perm i ss i on t o sel l the gu n aft erthe courthad rul ed thatthe evi dence w as i nadm i ss abl e duri ng the gu i l tph as e. T he court , ho w ever , h e a r d th e e v id e n c e . G ol de n’ s s t a t e pr oba t i on of f i c e rt e s t i f

i e d tha ts he ha d notc a l l e d G ol de n on the m orni ng of 27 D ec em ber 200 5. S he al so st at ed thatG ol den h ad no tca l l ed her a t a n y tim e d u r in g th a t d a y , a n d th a t s h e h a d n e v e rg iv e n h im p e rm is s io n to s e ll a g u n . T h e o f

f ic e rd id c o n f

irm th a t G o ld e n m a d e a$ 2 5 p a y m e n t th a t a f te rn o o n . F i na l l y , s he c onf

i rm e d tha ti tw a s he rr e s pons i bi l i ty t o r e por tpr oba t i one r s w ho vi ol a t e d the l a w , w he the rs t a t e orf e de r a l . T he pa w ns hop e m pl oy e e t e s t i f i e d tha the6

di d n otre m em ber the tra nsac t i on w i th G ol den, bu tthathe w ou l d h ave r em em bere d i f s om e one ha d c om e i n w i th af i r e a rm a nd s t a t e d tha the w a s ac onvi c t e d f e l on, s in c e th a t w o u ld h a v e b e e n s u c h a n u n u s u a l o c c u rr e n c e . G ol de n t e s t i f

i e d, r e pe a t i ng hi s pr e vi ous a c c ountof the e ve nt s of

27 D e c e m be r . H e a dde d tha t , w hi l e he w a s i n the pa w ns hop, he ha d a c tua l l y m a de th re e c alls to h is p ro b atio n o ff icer : (1 ) th e f

irst ca ll w en t t o th e p ro b atio n o ff icer ’s a n s w e r in g m a c h in e ; ( 2 ) th e s e c o n d c a ll w a s d r o p p e d ; a n d ( 3 ) d u r in g th e th ir d c a ll, he t al ked t o the offi ce r, w ho gave hi m perm i ss i on t o sel l the gu n. H e f urther t es t i fi ed that , as he w as l ea vi ng the paw nsho p, he had cal l ed hi s probat i on offi ce r onc e a ga i n t o l e the rknow tha the w a s br i ngi ng the $25. G ol de n i ntr oduc e d the phone r e c or ds f

orhi s c e l l phone , w hi c h s how e d tha the ha d c a l l e d hi s pr oba t i on offi ce r’ s off

i ce se vera l t i m es on 27 D ec em ber 200 5, ar ou nd the t i m es he t es t i fi ed th a t h e h a d c a lle d h e r . T he di s tr i c tc our tf

ound the t e s t i m ony of

the pa w ns hop e m pl oy e e a nd the p r o b a tio n o f

f ic e rm o r e c r e d ib le th a n G o ld e n ’s , a n d it ru le d th a t G o ld e n w ilf u lly m ade m at er i al l y f

al se st at em ent s t o the court . M ore s peci fi ca l l y, the courtst at ed tha ti tf ound the pa w ns hop e m pl oy e e t o be “ ve ry be l i e vabl e , ve ry c r e di bl e ” a nd G ol den t o b e very “ devi ou s” and “ gl i b. ” R 3 at12 8, 12 9. T he di stri ctcourtthen se nt ence d G ol den t o 9 0 m on ths i n p ri son and a $2, 00 0 fi ne.7 I I . DI S CUS S I ON A . E n trap m en t -b y-est o p p el D efen se O n ap p e a l, G o ld e n f

ir s t a r g u e s th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t e rr e d in d e n y in g h is re qu es tt o charge on entr apm entby es t op pel , despi t e hi s havi ng ent er ed an unc ondi t i ona l gui l ty pl e a . M or e s pe c i f i c a l l y , he a r gue s tha t , ba s e d on hi s R ul e 11 p l ea co l l o q u y, h e reaso n ab l y b el i ev ed th ath e h ad p reserv ed th e en trap m en t -b ye s t oppe l i s s ue f

orappe a l , a nd thus , pur s ua ntt o U ni t e d S t a t e s v. P i e rr e , 120 F . 3d 1 1 5 3 (1 1 th C i r. 1 9 9 7 ), h i s p l ea h ad n o tb een k n o w i n g an d v o l u n t ary. F e de r a l R ul e of

C r i m i na l P r oc e dur e 11( a ) ( 2) s t a t e s : “ W i th the c ons e ntof the c our ta nd the gove rnm e nt , ade f e nda ntm a y e nt e rac ondi t i ona l pl e aof gui l ty or no l o con t endere, re se rvi ng i n w ri t i ng the ri gh tt o h ave a n app el l at e c ou rtre vi ew an a d v e r s e d e te rm in a tio n o f as p e c if ie d p r e tr ia l m o tio n .” F e d . R . C r im . P . 1 1 ( a ) ( 2 ) . W e ha ve he l d tha tR ul e 11( a ) ( 2) r e qui r e s e xpr e s s c ons e ntf r om the gove rnm e nt b e f o r e ad e f e n d a n t c a n c o n d itio n a lly p le a d g u ilty . P ie rr e , 1 2 0 F .3 d a t 1 1 5 6 . S i l e nc e by the gove rnm e nt , f ol l ow i ng adi s tr i c tc our t ’ s s t a t e m e nt , dur i ng aR ul e 11 he a r i ng, tha tthe de f

e nda ntha s the r i ghtt o appe a l , i s i ns uf f i c i e ntt o pr e s e rve the i s s ue . I d. H ow e ve r , i f

ade f e nda nte nt e r s agui l ty pl e aon the r e a s onabl e , but m i st aken, bel i ef

thathe has pre se rved an i ss ue for app ea l because of the di stri ct c our t ’ s s t a t e m e nt s , the n the de f e nda nt ’ s “ pl e aw a s , a s am a tt e rof l a w , notknow i ng8

a nd vol unt a ry , ” a nd the de f e nda nt ’ s c onvi c t i on m us tbe va c a t e d a nd r e m a nde d f or h im to p le a d a n e w . I d . a t 1 1 5 6 . I n P i e rr e , the i s s ue w a s w he the rthe de f e nda ntha d pr e s e rve d ac ha l l e nge ba s e d on s pe e dy tr i a l i s s ue s . P i e rr e ’ s pl e ac ol l oquy , “ une qui voc a l l y i ndi c a t e [ d] tha tP i e rr e i nt e nde d t o pl e a d gui l ty on the c ondi t i on tha t– a nd onl y a f t e rha vi ng been as sure d b y the di stri ctcourtj ud ge that– h e had pres erved the spee dy tri al i ss ues f or appeal . ” I d. at11 55 . A dd i t i on al l y, P i erre ’ s c ou nsel al so expl i ci t l y tri ed to p r e s e rv e th e is s u e d u r in g th e p le ah e a r in g . I d . G o l d en ’ s p l ea co l l o q u y, o n th e o th er h an d , co n t ai n s n o ex p ress r e p r e s e n ta tio n s , b y th e d is tr ic t c o u r t, G o ld e n , o rh is c o u n s e l, th a t G o ld e n , in ent er i ng hi s gui l ty pl ea , i nt ended t o o r w as pres ervi ng the entrapm ent -by- es t op pel i ss ue for app ea l . Inst ea d, G ol den and hi s c ou nsel st at ed on l y thatG ol den w as pl e a di ng gui l ty be c a us e of the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s de ni a l of hi s r e que s tt o c ha r ge , a nd thatG ol den d i sa gree d w i th the court ’ s rul i ng . T he di stri ctcourtthen i nform ed G o l d en , “ I d o n ’ tk n o w w h eth er yo u h av e o th er d efen ses. B u ti f yo u p l ead g u i l ty, y ou a r e gi vi ng up thos e de f e ns e s . ” R 2- 46 a t24. W he n the di s tr i c tc our tr a i s e d the p ro sp ec t o f a n ap p ea l, G o ld en sa id , “ I’m n o t g o in g to fo ll o w w ith th at” a n d “I w asn ’ tev en g o i n g t o w ast e yo u r t i m e w i th n o th i n g l i k e th at , si r. ” Id . at2 5 . T h u s, G ol den, i f a nythi ng , i nd i ca t ed thathe w as no tgo i ng t o app ea l . F urther, the di stri ctIn any event, a s the district court properly noted, Go l d en ’s entrapment-by-estoppel issue 2 lac ks merit under our

bindingpre c e dent. Se eUnite d St ate s v . F un c he s, 13 5 F .3 d 1 40 5, 14 07 (1 1th Cir. 1998); United State s v. Br uscantini, 761 F.2d 640, 641- 42 (11th Cir. 1985), superse ded by statute on other grounds, see United States v. Fernande z, 234 F.3d 1345, 1347 n.2 (11th Cir. 2000) (per curiam). 9 c o u r t n e v e ra f

f irm a tiv e ly a d v is e d G o ld e n th a t h e w a s p r e s e rv in g h is e n tr ap m e n tb y - e s to p p e l is s u e . In U ni t ed S t at es v. L ej ar de-R ada, w e s i m i l ar l y di st i ng ui shed P i erre , ob se rvi ng that , “ [P i erre ] i nv ol ved a defendantw ho no ton l y r ea sonabl y bel i eved bu tw as al so af

fi rm at i vel y m i si nform ed by the courthe w ou l d b e a l l ow ed t o app ea l a n i s s ue tha thi s gui l ty pl e aw a i ve d. B y c ontr a s t , L e j a r de - R a daw a s not m i si nform ed of anythi ng , and there i s no i nd i ca t i on thathe re as on abl y bel i eved tha the c oul d appe a l the c our t ’ s r e f us a l t o de pa r tdow nw a r d. ” 319 F . 3d 1288, 1291 (1 1 th C ir. 2 0 0 3 ) ( p ercu riam ) ( citati o n o m itted ). A s in L ejar d e- R ad a, G o ld en ’s c a s e i s m a t e r i a l l y di f

f e r e ntf r om P i e rr e , a nd G ol de n’ s r e l i a nc e the r e upon i s t o no avai l . G ol den k no w i ng l y, vo l un t ar i l y, and eff ec t i vel y w ai ved h i s r i gh tt o app ea l the di stri ctcourt ’ s rul i ng as t o an entrapm ent -by- es t op pel defe nse. 2 B . D u e P ro cess G ol de n ne xta r gue s tha tthe di s tr i c tc our tvi ol a t e d hi s due pr oc e s s r i ght s by de ny i ng hi m the r i ghtt o m a ke a n e ntr apm e nt - by - e s t oppe l de f e ns e , buta l l ow i ng the go vernm entt o p re se ntevi dence, du ri ng se nt enci ng , thathe had l i ed t o the court10

re gardi ng the fa ct s thathe cl ai m ed es t abl i shed entrapm entby es t op pel . G ol den m a in ta in s th a t, if

th e e v id e n c e o n th is is s u e w a s le g a lly irr e le v a n t d u r in g th e g u ilt p h ase o f h i s p ro ceed i n g s, i tal so w as i rrel ev an td u ri n g sen t en ci n g . A d d i t i o n al l y, G ol den ass ert s, base d o n U ni t ed S t at es v. T ho m pson , 25 F . 3d 15 58 (11th C i r. 1 9 9 4 ), th ata j u ry sh o u l d m ak e th e fi n d i n g s o f factreg ard i n g an en trap m en t -b ye s to p p e l d e f

e n s e , n o t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t. W e r e vi e w c ons t i tut i ona l c ha l l e nge s – s uc h a s adue pr oc e s s a r gum e nt– de n o v o . U n ite d S ta te s v . O ’K e e f e , 4 6 1 F .3 d 1 3 3 8 , 1 3 4 6 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) , c e r t. deni ed, __ U . S . __ , 12 7 S . C t . 13 08 (200 7). In the E l eventh C i rc ui t , an entrapm ent -by- es t op pel defe nse i s onl y a vai l abl e w hen the defendanthas r el i ed upon af e de r a l of f i c i a l ’ s m i s s t a t e m e ntof

the l a w . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. F unc he s , 135 F . 3d 1405, 1407 ( 11th C i r . 1998) . H ow e ve r , adi s tr i c tc our tm a y “ c ons i de ra ny i nform at i on . . . re gardl es s of i t s a dm i ss i bi l i ty a ttri al , i n d et erm i ni ng w hether fa ct ors e xi stthatw ou l d enh ance a def endant ’ s s ent ence , prov i ded thatthe evi dence h a s s u f f ic ie n t in d ic iao f

r e liab ility , th e c o u r t m a k e s e x p lic it f in d in g s o f

f a c t a s to cr edi bi l i ty, and the defendanthas a n o pp ortun i ty t o rebutthe evi dence. ” U ni t ed S ta te s v . B a k e r , 4 3 2 F .3 d 1 1 8 9 , 1 2 5 3 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) . A d d itio n a lly , a c c o r d in g to the S e nt e nc i ng G ui de l i ne s , ac our tm a y c ons i de ra ny r e l e va nti nf orm a t i on “ w i thout re gard t o i t s a dm i ss i bi l i ty und erthe rul es of evi dence” w hen res ol vi ng di sput ed11

f a c t s i m por t a ntt o as e nt e nc i ng de t e rm i na t i on. U . S . S . G . § 6A 1. 3( a ) , p. s . T he G u id e lin e s a llo w f

o ratw o - le v e l e n h a n c e m e n t if th e d e f e n d a n t w illf

u lly o b s tru c ts o rim p e d e s ju s tic e . U .S .S .G . § 3 C 1 .1 . A n o b s tru c tio n o f ju s tic e e n h a n c e m e n t is appr opr i a t e w he n the de f e nda ntpe r

j ur e s hi m s e l f

. U ni t e d S t a t e s v. S i ngh, 291 F . 3d 7 5 6 , 7 6 2 - 6 3 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ) . O n th is p o in t, G o ld e n c o n f la te s tw o s e p a r a te is s u e s –( 1 ) w h e th e rh e c o u ld r a is e a n e n tr ap m e n t- b y - e s to p p e l d e f e n s e , a n d ( 2 ) w h e th e rh e p e r ju r e d h im s e lf dur i ng the R ul e 11 he a r i ng – be c a us e the e vi de nc e i s the s a m e f orboth. A s not e d, the di stri ctcourtcorr ec t l y rul ed thatthe entrapm ent -by- es t op pel defe nse w as una va i l abl e t o G ol de n, thus m a ki ng the i s s ue of w he the rornothi s s t a t e pr oba t i on o f f ic e rg a v e h im p e rm is s io n to s e ll th e g u n irr e le v a n t d u r in g th e c o n v ic tio n p h a s e . S ee F un ches , 13 5 F . 3d at14 07 . T hi s di d n ot , ho w ever , m ake the evi dence i rr el evantdu ri ng the se nt enci ng ph as e bec ause there w as a di ff er enti ss ue un der consi dera t i on : w hether G ol den h ad com m i tt ed perj ury. S ee B aker , 43 2 F . 3d at 1253. T hi s w a s ar e l e va nti s s ue f orthe di s tr i c tc our tt o c ons i de rdur i ng s e nt e nc i ng be c a us e , i f

G ol de n ha d l i e d, a n obs truc t i on of j us t i c e e nha nc e m e ntm i ghtbe approp ri at e. S ee B aker , 43 2 F . 3d at12 53 , S i ng h, 29 1 F . 3d at76 3. A dd i t i on al l y, at the s e nt e nc i ng he a r i ng, the di s tr i c tc our tm a de e xpl i c i tf i ndi ngs tha tthe pr oba t i on offi ce r a nd paw nsho p em pl oyee w er e m ore c re di bl e than G ol den. F urther, G ol den12

h a d th e o p p o r tu n ity to te s tif y o n h is o w n b e h a lf

, to in tr o d u c e p h o n e r e c o r d s to s uppor thi s c l a i m s , a nd t o c r os s - e xa m i ne the pr oba t i on of f i c e ra nd pa w ns hop e m p lo y e e . S e e B a k e r , 4 3 2 F .3 d a t 1 2 5 3 ; R 3 a t 1 5 - 3 8 , 4 4 - 5 2 , 5 5 - 7 1 , 1 3 0 . A c c o r d in g ly , w e s e e n o s u b s ta n tiv e o rp r o c e d u r a l d u e p r o c e s s p r o b le m . F i nal l y, T ho m pson do es no tsupp ortG ol den’ s due proces s c l ai m . In T ho m pson , the defendantsoug htt o rai se an entrapm ent -by- es t op pel defe nse, cl ai m i ng thatfe dera l agent s gave hi m i m m un i ty t o p osse ss a f i re arm . 25 F . 3d at 1560- 62. F ol l ow i ng am ot i on by the gove rnm e ntt o pr e ve ntT hom ps on f r om r a i s i ng the de f

e ns e , the di s tr i c tc our the a r d T hom ps on’ s t e s t i m ony i n c a m e r abut then rul ed thathe coul d n otra i se the defens e bec ause entrapm entby es t op pel w as n o t ap e rm is s ib le d e f

e n s e in § 9 2 2 c a s e s . I d . a t 1 5 6 3 . W e c o n c lu d e d th a t, if p r o f f e r e d te s tim o n y a s to a n e n tr ap m e n t- b y - e s to p p e l d e f e n s e h a s a n y r e le v a n c e to s u c h ad e f

e n s e , it is f

o rth e ju ry to h e a ra n d w e ig h th e e v id e n c e –in th a t c a s e , to de c i de w he the rthe gove rnm e nt ’ s gr a ntof i m m uni ty a c tua l l y i nc l ude d a l l ow i ng the c o n v ic te d f

e lo n to p o s s e s s af

ir e a rm . I d . a t 1 5 6 4 , 1 5 6 5 . F i rst , u n l i k e i n T h o m p so n , ev en i f G o l d en ’ s t est i m o n y w ere al l tru e, b ecau se hi s probat i on offi ce r w as a s t at e r ather than a feder al agent , hi s t es t i m on y w as i rr el evantt o an entrapm ent -by- es t op pel defe nse. S ec on d, the i ss ue here i s w hether the di s tr i c tc our tc oul d de t e rm i ne G ol de n’ s c r e di bi l i ty i n de c i di ng i f a n obs truc t i on-13

o f - ju s tic e e n h a n c e m e n t w a s ap p r o p r ia te . A d is tr ic t c o u r t m a y m a k e c r e d ib ility d e te rm in a tio n s a s th e y r e la te to s e n te n c in g is s u e s . S e e B a k e r , 4 3 2 F .3 d a t 1 2 5 3 . A c c or di ngl y , w e c onc l ude tha tthe di s tr i c tc our tdi d notvi ol a t e G ol de n’ s due proces s r i gh t s i n thi s r es pectei ther. C . O b s tru c tio n o f

J u s tic e a n d A c c e p ta n c e o f R e s p o n s ib ility G ol de n ne xta r gue s tha t , e ve n i f i tw a s notadue pr oc e s s vi ol a t i on f orthe di s tr i c tc our tt o c ons i de re vi de nc e dur i ng s e nt e nc i ng r e ga r di ng w he the rornothe ha d pe rm i s s i on t o s e l l the gun, the e vi de nc e w a s notm a t e r i a l t o a ny s e nt e nc i ng i s s ue a nd s houl d notha ve be e n c ons i de r e d a s gr ounds f orf i ndi ng obs truc t i on of j us t i c e orde ny i ng hi m ar e duc t i on f ora c c e pt a nc e of

r e s pons i bi l i ty . W e r e vi e w the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s i nt e rpr e t a t i on of the G ui de l i ne s de novo a nd i t s f a c tua l f i ndi ngs f or c l e a re rr or . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. J or di , 418 F . 3d 1212, 1214 ( 11th C i r . 2005) . T he di stri ctcourt ’ s det erm i nat i on re gardi ng the prop ri ety of a n o bstruct i on -of- j ust i ce enhancem entor an acc ept ance -of- re spon si bi l i ty r educt i on i s aqu es t i on of fa ct r e vi e w e d f

orc l e a re rr or . S i ngh, 291 F . 3d a t763. A ddi t i ona l l y , w e de f e rt o a di stri ctcourt ’ s c re di bi l i ty f i nd i ng base d o n i t s havi ng had the op po rtun i ty t o v i ew th e w itn e s s e s a s th e y te s tif ie d . S e e id . a t 7 6 3 - 6 4 . T he G ui de l i ne s pr ovi de f oratw o- l e ve l e nha nc e m e ntw he n ade f e nda nt w i l l f ul l y obs truc t s ori m pe de s j us t i c e w i th r e s pe c tt o s e nt e nc i ng, a nd the14

o b s tru c tiv e c o n d u c t r e la te s to a n o f f e n s e f o rw h ic h th e d e f

e n d a n t w a s c o n v ic te d . U . S . S . G . § 3C 1. 1. T he c om m e nt s t o § 3C 1. 1 s t a t e tha tc om m i tt i ng 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 s t a t e m e nt s t o aj udge a r e gr ounds f orappl y i ng the e nha nc e m e nt . I d. c om m e nt . ( n. 4( b) , ( f ) ) . U nde r§ 3C 1. 1, “ the thr e s hol d f or m a t e r i a l i ty i s ‘ c ons pi c uous l y l ow . ’ ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. M a s s e y , 443 F . 3d 814, 821 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) ( c ita tio n o m itte d ) . O n th e o th e rh a n d , a s am a tte ro f la w , a de f e nda nt ’ s pos t - c onvi c t i on a nd pr e - s e nt e nc e a s s e r t i ons of i nnoc e nc e “ c a nnotbe m a te r ia l to s e n te n c in g if th e a s s e r tio n s ’ tru th [ w o u ld ] r e q u ir e [ ] th e ju ry ’s v e r d ic t to be i n err or. ” U ni t ed S t at es v. G ar di ner, 95 5 F . 2d 14 92 , 14 99 -150 0 (11 th C i r. 1992) . F i na l l y , a s age ne r a l rul e , i f the di s tr i c tc our tf

i nds tha tthe de f

e nda nt obs truc t e d j us t i c e , the n atw o- l e ve l de c r e a s e unde r§ 3E 1. 1 f ora c c e pt a nc e of re spon si bi l i ty i s unavai l abl e. U . S . S . G . § 3 E 1. 1 com m ent . (n. 4); S i ng h, 29 1 F . 3d at 7 6 5 . Th e d i s tr i c tc o u r tf i r s tc o n c l u d e d th a tG o l d e n w a s n o tc r e d i b l e . By e xt e ns i on, G ol de n c om m i tt e d pe r j ury by f a l s e l y t e s t i f

y i ng tha the ha d pe rm i s s i on fr om hi s probat i on offi ce r t o sel l the gu n. G ol den’ s f al se st at em ent s w er e m at er i al be c a us e , i f

the di s tr i c tc our tha d be l i e ve d hi m , i tl i ke l y w oul d ha ve i m pos e d a m u c h s h o r te rs e n te n c e , g iv e n th e c o u r t’s o r d e rf o llo w in g th e R u le 1 1 h e a r in g , in w hi c h i ts t a t e d tha ti tdi d nots e e m c orr e c te ve n t o c ha r ge G ol de n i f he w e r e t e l l i ng15

the truth. T hi s i s s uffi ci entt o sat i sf y the l ow thres ho l d for m at er i al i ty. S ee M as se y, 44 3 F . 3d at82 1. B ec ause G ol den’ s probat i on offi ce r w as a s t at e r ather tha n af e de r a l a ge nt , G ol de n’ s a s s e r t i ons , e ve n i f true , w oul d notha ve r e qui r e d a di f f e r e ntve r di c t , a nd thus a r e notdi s qua l i f i e d on tha tgr ound. S e e G a r di ne r , 955 F . 2d a t1499- 1500. T he di s tr i c tc our t , the r e f or e , di d notc l e a r l y e rri n appl y i ng a tw o- l e ve l obs truc t i on of j us t i c e e nha nc e m e nt . L i ke w i s e the di s tr i c tc our tdi d not cl ea rl y e rri n n otappl yi ng a tw o-l evel , ac ce pt ance -of- re spon si bi l i ty r educt i on si nce G ol de n obs truc t e d j us t i c e . S e e S i ngh, 291 F . 3d a t765. I I I . CONCL US I ON G o l d en ap p eal s h i s co n v i ct i o n an d sen t en ce fo r p o ssessi o n o f a fi rearm b y a c onvi c t e d f

e l on. F i r s t , be c a us e G ol de n di d note nt e rac ondi t i ona l gui l ty pl e a , a nd w e fi n d th ath i s p l ea w as k n o w i n g an d v o l u n t ary, h e h as w ai v ed th e ri g h tt o rai se the entrapm ent -by- es t op pel defe nse on app ea l . A cc ordi ng l y, w e AF F I RM h is co n v icti o n . S ec o n d , th e d istrict co u rt d idn o t errin co n sid er in g G o ld en ’s c r e d ib ility a s to w h e th e rh is s ta te p r o b a tio n o f f ic e rh a d g iv e n h im p e rm is s io n to s e ll th e g u n , in ap p ly in g a n e n h a n c e m e n t f o ro b s tru c tio n o f

ju s tic e , o rin r e f

u s in g to r e d u c e f o ra c c e p ta n c e o f

r e s p o n s ib ility b e c a u s e , r e g a r d le s s o f th e r e le v a n c y o f

th is e v id e n c e a s to h is g u ilt, w h e th e rG o ld e n lie d w a s m a te r ia l to s e n te n c in g . A c c or di ngl y , w e a l s o A F F I R M hi s s ent ence .