### F I LE D U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E LEVE NTH CI RCUI T Fe br uar y 28, 2006 T HOM AS K. KAHN C L E RK [ 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- 12820 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 0 4 - 0 0 1 0 3 - C R - 3 - L AC 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 T H O N G C . T R A N , a .k .a . T h o n g T r a 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 orthe N orthe rn D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( F e b r u ar y 28, 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: T ho ng C . T ran app ea l s hi s c on vi ct i on s and 60 -m on th con curr entse nt ence sMiranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.C t. 1602, 16 L .Ed.2d 694 (1966). 1 2 fo r o n e co u n to f b an kru p t cy frau d an d tw o co u n t s o f m ak i n g a fal se d e c la r a tio n /c e rtif

ic a te /v e r if

ic a tio n /s ta te m e n t u n d e rp e n a ltyo f p e r ju ry in r e la tio n to ab a n k ru p tc y p r o c e e d in g , in v io la tio n o f 1 8 U .S .C . § § 1 5 2 a n d 1 5 7 . O n ap p e a l, T r a n a r g u e s th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u rt r e v e r s ib ly e rr e d b y d e n y in g T r a n ’s m o tio n to s u p p r e s s h is p o s t- M ir a n d a s ta te m e n t w h e n th e c o u rt f a ile d to a d d r e s s e x p lic itly 1 T r a n ’s a r g u m e n t th a t, b e f o r e r e c e iv in g M ir a n d aw a rn in g s , h e h a d in v o k e d h is p o s tin d ic tm e n t S ix th A m e n d m e n t r ig h t to c o u n s e l w h e n h e a lle g e d ly r e q u e s te d h is bank rupt cyl aw ye r’ s busi ness card. S ec on d, he ar gu es thatthe evi dence pres ent ed at h is su p p re ss io n h ea rin g co n ce rn in g th e r eq u es t fo r h is b an k ru p tcy a tt o rn ey ’s card and the court ’ s f

i nd i ng thathe t es t i fi ed fa l se l y w as i nsuffi ci entt o sup po rt court ’ s app l i ca t i on of a tw o-l evel ob struct i on -of- j ust i ce enhancem entun der U . S . S . G . § 3C 1. 1. I. In vo cati on of th e R i gh t t o C ou n se l

“ A di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s rul i ng on am ot i on t o s uppr e s s pr e s e nt s m i xe d que s t i ons of l aw and fact . ” U ni t ed S t at es v. R am i re z- C hi l el , 28 9 F . 3d 74 4, 74 8-49 (11th C i r. 2002) . W e a r e “ r e qui r e d t o a c c e ptthe di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s f a c tua l f i ndi ngs a s true u n le s s th e y a r e c le a r ly e rr o n e o u s , b u t th e d is tr ic t c o u rt’s ap p lic a tio n o f th e la w to th e f a c ts is r e v ie w e d d e n o v o .” I d . a t 7 4 9 ( q u o ta tio n o m itte d ) .3

“ T he S i xth A m e ndm e ntpr ovi de s tha ti n a l l c r i m i na l pr os e c ut i ons , the a c c u s e d s h a ll e n

jo y th e r ig h t . . . to h a v e th e A s s is ta n c e o f C o u n s e l f

o rh is de f e nc e . ” T e xa s v. C obb, 532 U . S . 162, 167, 121 S . C t . 1335, 1340, 149 L . E d. 2d 32 1 (20 01 ) ( qu ot at i on and al t er at i on om i tt ed). T he S up re m e C ou rthas e xp l ai ned th a t: T he S i xth A m endm entri gh t to co u nsel . . . i s off ense spec i fi c. It c an n o t b e i nvoke d onc e f ora l l f utur e pr os e c ut i ons , f

ori tdoe s not a tt a c h unt i l apr os e c ut i on i s c om m e nc e d, tha ti s , a tora f t e rthe i ni t i at i on of advers ary j ud i ci al cr i m i nal proceedi ng s – w hethe r b y w ay of f orm a l c ha r ge , pr e l i m i na ry he a r i ng, i ndi c tm e nt , i nfo rm a t i on, or a rr a ig n m e n t. Id. at16 7-68 (quo t at i on and al t er at i on s om i tt ed). T he S i xth A m endm entatt ac hes a tth e i n i t i a t i o n o f

a d v e r s a ry j u d i c i a l p r o c e e d i n g s . M i c h i g a n v . J a c k s o n , 4 7 5 U . S. 62 5, 63 1, 10 6 S . C t . 14 04 , 14 08 , 89 L . E d. 2d 63 1 (19 86 ). “ [O ] nce acr i m i nal de f e nda nti nvoke s hi s S i xth A m e ndm e ntr i ghtt o c ouns e l , as ubs e que ntw a i ve rof th atri g h t–ev en i f v o l u n t ary, k n o w i n g , an d i n t el l i g en tu n d er trad i t i o n al st an d ard s – i s pre sum ed i nv al i d i f s ec ured pu rs uantt o p ol i ce -i ni t i at ed conv er sa t i on . ” M i chi gan v. H a rve y , 494 U . S . 344, 345, 110 S . C t . 1176, 1177, 108 L . E d. 2d 293 ( 1990) ( c i t i ng J a c ks on, 475 U . S . 625, 106 S . C t . 1404) . T he di s tr i c tc ourtm us tde t e rm i ne i f the a c c us e d a c tua l l y i nvoke d hi s r i ghtt o c ouns e l . S m i th v. I l l i noi s , 469 U . S . 91, 95 , 10 5 S . C t . 49 0, 49 2, 83 L . E d. 2d 48 8 (19 84 ). W hether adefe nd anthas i nv ok ed hi s r i ghtt o c ouns e l i s a n obj e c t i ve i nqui ry . D a vi s v. U ni t e d S t a t e s , 512 U . S . 452,4

4 5 8 - 5 9 , 1 1 4 S .C t. 2 3 5 0 , 2 3 5 5 , 1 2 9 L .E d .2 d 3 6 2 ( 1 9 9 4 ) . I n D a vi s , the pe t i t i one rw a s i nt e rvi e w e d r e ga r di ng hi s pos s i bl e i nvol ve m e nt in ah o m ic id e . I d . a t 4 5 4 , 1 1 4 S .C t. a t 2 3 5 3 . B e f o r e b e in g in te rv ie w e d , D a v is w a iv e d h is r ig h ts to r e m a in s ile n t a n d to c o u n s e l. I d . a t 4 5 5 , 1 1 4 S .C t. a t 2 3 5 3 . A ho ur and a hal f i nt o the i nt ervi ew D avi s s ai d, “ M aybe I s ho ul d t al k t o a l aw ye r. ” A tthatpo i nti n the i nt ervi ew , the agent s i nq ui re d as t o w hether the pet i t i on erw as as ki ng for al aw ye r or w as j ustm aki ng a c om m entabou ta l aw ye r. D avi s r epl i ed tha the w a s nota s ki ng f oral a w y e ra nd tha the di d notw a ntal a w y e r . T he i nt ervi ew then con t i nu ed for ano ther hou r unt i l D avi s s ai d, “ I thi nk I w anta l aw ye r before I say anythi ng el se . ” T he i nt ervi ew then ceas ed. Id. T he S up re m e C ou rt s ta te d th a t: i f the s us pe c tm a ke s ar e f e r e nc e t o a n a tt orne y tha ti s a m bi guous or equi vo ca l i n thata r ea sonabl e off i ce r i n l i gh tof the ci rc um st ance s w oul d ha ve unde rst o o d onl y tha tthe s us pe c tm i ghtbe i nvoki ng the r i ghtt o c ouns e l , ourpr e c e de nt s d o n o tr e qui r e the c e s s a t i on of que s t i oni ng. R a the r , the s us pe c tm us tuna m bi guous l y req u est c o u n s e l. Id. at45 9, 11 4 S . C t . at23 55 (c i t at i on s om i tt ed). T he S up re m e C ou rtre cogn i ze d tha tthe r e qui r e m e ntf

orac l e a ra s s e rt i on of

the r i ghtt o c ouns e l m i ghtdi s a dva nt a ge s u s p e c ts w h o b e c au s e o f ala c ko f lin g u is tic s k ills w o u ld n o t c le a r ly a rtic u la te th e ir r i ghtt o c ouns e l a l though the y a c tua l l y w a nt e d t o ha ve al a w y e rpr e s e nt . I d. a t460, 1 1 4 S .C t. a t 2 3 5 6 . N o n e th e le s s , th e C o u rt b e lie v e d r e q u ir in g p o lic e o f f ic e r s toUnited States v. Booker, 543 U.S. ___, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L .Ed.2d 621 (2005). 2 5 m ake di ff

i cul tj ud gm entca l l s abo utw hether asuspec ti nv ok ed hi s r i gh tt o cou nsel w a s m o r e p r o b le m a tic . S e e id . a t 4 6 1 , 1 1 4 S .C t. a t 2 3 5 6 . I n th e in s ta n t c a s e , th e d is tr ic t c o u rt d id n o t m a k e as p e c if ic f in d in g a s to w h eth er T ran m ad e h i s al l eg ed req u estfo r h i s b an k ru p t cy l aw yer’ s card an d , th u s, d i d n o tex p l i ci t l y ad d ress w h eth er T ran i n v o k ed h i s ri g h tt o co u n sel . N ev erth el ess, r e m a n d is u n n e c e s s a ry b e c au s e , e v e n if T r a n h a d m a d e th e r e q u e s t to r e tr ie v e h is ba nkrupt c y l a w y e r ’ s bus i ne s s c a r d, thi s r e que s tw a s t oo a m bi guous t o ha ve c ons t i tut e d a n i nvoc a t i on of hi s r i ghtt o c ouns e l . S e e D a vi s , 512 U . S . a t459, 114 S .C t. a t 2 3 5 5 . A s th e S u p r e m e C o u rt h a s s ta te d , a“s u s p e c t m u s t u n a m b ig u o u s ly r e q u e s t c o u n s e l.” I d . H e r e , T r a n d id n o t m a k e a n u n a m b ig u o u s r e q u e s t. T h e r e f o r e , th e d is tr ic t c o u rt d id n o t e rrw h e n it r e f u s e d to g r a n t T r a n ’s m o tio n to s u p p r e s s . I I . U .S .S .G . § 3 C 1 .1

“ A l tho ug h B oo ker es t abl i shed a ‘ re as on abl enes s’ st andard for the se nt ence 2 fi nal l y i m po se d o n a defendant , the S up re m e C ou rtconcl ud ed i n B oo ker that d istrict co u rts m u st stil l co n sid erth e G u id elin es in d eter m in in g a d ef en d an t’ s s e nt e nc e . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. C r a w f or d, 407 F . 3d 1174, 1178 ( 11th C i r . 2005)6

(ci t at i o n s o m i tt ed ). M o reo v er, “ [n ] o th i n g i n B o o k er su g g est s th ata reaso n ab l en ess s t a nda r d s houl d gove rn r e vi e w of the i nt e rpr e t a t i on a nd appl i c a t i on a s a dvi s ory of the G ui del i nes by adi stri ctcourt . ” I d. (r ea ff i rm i ng thatthe pre-Bo ok erst andard as t o the G ui de l i ne s s t i l l appl i e s ) . “ A l though unde rB ooke r , the S e nt e nc i ng G ui del i nes are an advi soryra ther than a m andat ory r egi m e, the di stri ctcourt r e m a in s o b lig e d to c o n s u lt a n d ta k e in to a c c o u n t th e G u id e lin e s in s e n te n c in g .” I d . ( q u o ta tio n s o m itte d ) ( e m p h a s is in o r ig in a l) . “T h is c o n s u lta tio n r e q u ir e m e n t, a t a m i ni m um , obl i ge s the di s tr i c tc ourtt o c a l c ul a t e c orr e c t l y the s e nt e nc i ng r a nge p r e s c r ib e d b y th e G u id e lin e s .” I d . ( e m p h a s is in o r ig in a l) . W he r e the di s tr i c tc ourtha s t o m a ke apa rt i c ul a r i z e d a s s e s s m e ntof the d e f e n d a n t’s c r e d ib ilityo rd e m e a n o rin d e te rm in in g w h e th e rU .S .S .G . § 3 C 1 .1 ap p l i es, su ch as w h en ap p l yi n g th e o b stru ct i o n -o f-j u st i ce en h an cem en tfo r p erj u ry, w e a c c or d s pe c i a l de f

e r e nc e t o the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s c r e di bi l i ty de t e rm i na t i ons a nd re vi ew for c l ear 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. 2 0 0 3 ) . S ect i o n 3 C 1 . 1 o f th e S en t en ci n g G u i d el i n es p ro v i d es as fo l l o w s: I f ( A ) th e d e f

e n d a n t w illf

u llyo b s tru c t e d o rim p e d e d , o ra tte m p te d to obs truc tor i 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, pr os e c ut i on, ors e nt e nc i ng of the i ns t a nt of

f e ns e of the c onvi c t i on, a nd ( B ) the ob struc t i ve c onduc tr e l a t e d t o ( i ) the defe nd ant ’ s off

en se of conv i ct i on and any rel evantcond uct ; or (i i ) a c lo s e ly r e la te d o f

f e n s e , in c r e a s e th e o f

f e n s e le v e l b y 2 le v e ls .7

T h e c o m m e n ta ryto th is s e c tio n n o te s th a t “c o m m ittin g , s u b o rn in g , o ra tte m p tin g to s u b o rn p e r

ju ry ” is a n e x a m p le o f

c o n d u c t to w h ic h th is e n h a n c e m e n t ap p lie s . U . S . S . G . § 3C . 1. 1 c m t . n. 4( b) . T he c om m e nt a ry a l s o not e s tha t“ pr ovi di ng m a te r ia lly f

a ls e in f o rm a tio n to aju d g e o rm a g is tr a te ” is a n e x a m p le o f c o n d u c t to w hi ch thi s e nh ance m entappl i es . Id. , cm t . n. 4(f ) . In addi t i on , the com m ent ary s ta te s th a t “‘[ m ]a te r ia l’ 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 , a s u s e d in th is s e c tio n , 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, if

b e lie v e d , w o u ld t e nd t o i nf

l ue nc e ora f

f e c tthe i s s ue unde rde t e rm i na t i on. ” I d. , c m t . n. 6. W e ha ve h e ld “th a t th e th r e s h o ld f o rm a te r ia lityu n d e rth e c o m m e n ta ry to § 3 C 1 .1 is c ons pi c uous l y l ow . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. O de ni na , 980 F . 2d 705, 707 ( 11th C i r . 1993) ( quot a t i on om i tt e d) . F orthi s e nha nc e m e ntt o appl y on af i ndi ng of pe r j ury , the f oure l e m e nt s of

pe r j ury m us tbe pr e s e nt . S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. S i ngh, 291 F . 3d 75 6, 76 3 (11 th C i r. 20 02 ). T he four el em ent s are “ (1) the t es t i m on y m ustbe un der oa 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 us tbe gi ve n w i th the w i l l f ul i nt e ntt o pr ovi de f a l s e t e s t i m ony a nd nota s ar e s ul tof am i s t a ke , c onf

us i on, orf

aul ty m e m ory . ” I d. a t 7 6 3 n .4 . F urthe rm or e , w e ha ve s t a t e d tha t“ [ w ] he n appl y i ng thi s e nha nc e m e nt , the di s tr i c tc ourts houl d m a ke s pe c i f i c f i ndi ngs a s t o e a c h a l l e ge d i ns t a nc e of8

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

y in g th e m a te r ia llyf

a ls e s ta te m e n ts in d iv id u a lly . H o w e v e r , a ge ne r a l f i ndi ng tha ta n e nha nc e m e nti s w a rr a nt e d s uf f i c e s i f i te nc om pa s s e s a l l 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. ” S i ngh, 291 F . 3d a t763 (quo t at i on s, ci t at i on s, and al t er at i on s om i tt ed). A l s o, w e ha ve e s t abl i s he d s t a nda r ds f orw he the rade f

e nda ntha s w a i ve d the ar gu m entthathe i s e nt i t l ed t o p art i cul ar i ze d fi nd i ng s thatperj ury j ust i fi es an ob struct i on enhancem ent . S ee U ni t ed S t at es v. H ub ert , 13 8 F . 3d 91 2 (11 th C i r. 19 98 ). In H ub ert , the appel l ant ’ s s ent ence w as enhanced for obstruct i on of j ust i ce base d u po n h i s tri al t es t i m on y and hi s pri or t es t i m on y a ttw o h eari ng s. 13 8 F . 3d at 91 4-15 (11th C i r. 19 98 ). H ub ertar gu ed thatthe di stri ctcourtfa i l ed t o m ake a s uf f i c i e nt l y de t a i l e d f

i ndi ng tha the c om m i tt e d pe r j ury a nd obs truc t e d j us t i c e . I d. at91 5. W hi l e not i ng the det ai l ed fi nd i ng s w er e notnece ss ary gi ven the suff i ci ency o f th e reco rd , w e co n cl u d ed th at , i n an y ev en t , b ecau se H u b ertfai l ed t o req u est pa rt i c ul a r i z e d f

i ndi ngs r e ga r di ng the pe r j ur i ous s t a t e m e nt s a tthe s e nt e nc i ng he a r i ng, he w a i ve d thi s a r gum e nt . I d. B y f a i l i ng t o r e que s ttha tthe c ourtm a ke pa rt i c ul a r i z e d f i ndi ngs a s t o the p e r ju r io u s te s tim o n y , T r a n h a s w a iv e d th is a r g u m e n t. S e e H u b e rt, 1 3 8 F .3 d a t 9 1 5 . M or e ove r , the c ourt ’ s ge ne r a l f i ndi ng tha tT r a n ha d c om m i tt e d pe r j ury orm a de m a t e r i a l l y f

a l s e s t a t e m e nt s i s s uf

f i c i e ntt o s upportthe appl i c a t i on of the9

e n h a n c e m e n t. S e e S in g h , 2 9 1 F .3 d a t 7 6 3 . F ir s t, T r a n te s tif ie d u n d e ro a th . S ec o n d , th e c o u rt co n clu d ed th at T ra n ’s testim o n y w as fa lse. T h ird , T ra n ’s t e s t i m ony w a s m a t e r i a l be c aus e i t“ w oul d t e nd t o i nf l ue nc e ora f

f e c tthe i s s ue unde rde t e rm i na t i on. ” U . S . S . G . § 3C 1. 1, c m t . n. 6. B e c aus e the s t a nda r d f or m at er i al i ty und er§ 3 C 1. 1 i s “ conspi cuou sl y l ow , ” the fa ctthatT ran’ s a l l eged r e q u e s t f o rh is b a n k ru p tc y la w y e r ’s c a r d , if b e lie v e d , w a s in s u f

f ic ie n t to in v o k e h is r ig h t to c o u n s e l d o e s n o t n e g a te th e m a te r ia lityo f h is te s tim o n y b e c au s e it w o u ld t e nd t o i nf

l ue nc e the c ourt . S e e O de ni na , 980 F . 2d a t707. F i na l l y , i ti s appa r e nt fr om the re cord thatT ran’ s t es t i m on y c ou l d n othave been the re sul tof m i st ake, c o n f u s io n , o rf

au lty m e m o ry . C on c l u s i on B ec ause T ran’ s a l l eged requestfor hi s bankrup t cyl aw ye r’ s busi ness card w as i nsuffi ci entt o i nv ok e hi s r i gh tt o cou nsel and b ec ause the court ’ s gener al fi nd i ng supp ort s the appl i ca t i on of the U . S . S . G . § 3 C 1. 1 o bstruct i on -of- j ust i ce e nha nc e m e nt , w e di s c e rn no r e ve r s i bl e e rr or . A c c or di ngl y , ba s e d on ar e vi e w of the re cord and the part i es ’ bri ef s, w e a ff i rm T ran’ s c on vi ct i on s and se nt ence . AF F I RME D.