FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T J UNE 25, 2012 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO N OT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 16 10 9 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 0 :1 0- cr-6 01 70 -J IC-1

UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l l Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, vers us KERRY ANN WALTERS-RIC KETTS, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e So ut he rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (J un e 2 5, 2 01 2) Befo re HULL, MARTIN an d F AY, Circ ui t Jud ge s. PER CURI AM: Kerry Ann W al te rs -Ri ck et ts (“ Ri ck et ts ”) ap pe al s h er co nv ic ti on s an d h erto ta l 9 0- m on thsen te nc e aft er b ei ng co nv ic te d b y a jury of im

po rti ng co cai ne , in vi ol at io n o f 21 U.S.C. § 9 52 (a) (C ou nt1), a ndpo ss es si ng with i nt en t t o d is tri bu te co cai ne , invi ol at io n o f 21 U.S.C. § 8 41 (a)( 1) (Co un t 2 ). Ric ke tt s ra is es th ree m ai n a rg um en ts on ap pe al . Firs t, s he co nt en ds th atth e d is tri ctco urt v io la te d Fed eral Ru le of Ev id en ce 4 04 (b ) by adm it ti ng ev id en ce tha t s he satne xtto a kn own dru g d eal er dur in g t wo fl ig ht s b etweenth e Uni te d S ta te s an d J am ai ca. Seco nd , sh e arg ue s t ha t t he go ve rn m en t p res en te d i ns uf fic ie ntev id en ce attri al to pr ov e th atsh e kne w abo utth e co cai ne co nc eal edin he r handba g. Fi na ll y , sh e as se rts th atth e d is tri ctco urt erredby giv in g h er a t wo- le ve l g ui de li ne en ha nc em en t fo r ob st ru ct io n o f jus ti ce. Fo r th e rea so ns setforth be lo w, we affi rm . I. FACTS At Ri ck et ts ’s tri al , th e g ov ern m en t i nt ro du cedth e te st im on ie s o f se ve ral law en fo rcem en t ag en ts , rev eal in g t he fol lo win g fa ct s. Fed eral ag en ts rece iv ed in fo rm at io n fr om

a co nf id en ti al in fo rm an t, Wend el l Ham il to n, t ha t Ri ck et ts m ig ht be carry in g d ru gs ona fl ig htfro m Jamaica t o t he Uni te d S ta te s o n Ap ril 29 , 20 10 . Upo n R ic ke tt s’s arriv al at t he air po rt, a ge nt s s earc he d h er l ug ga ge an d d is co ve red ap pr ox im at el y

on e k il og ram

of c oc ai ne co nc eal edin si de th e li ni ng of h er h an db ag . Ri ck etts ga ve th e ag en ts di ffer in g v ers io ns of h ow s he cam e to po ss es s t he ha ndba g. Sh e fi rs t t ol d t he m th at , to wardth e en d o f he r st ay in Jamaica, s he went 2to anou td oo r cra ft m ark etwher e a v en do r expr es se d ade si re t o p ur ch as e h er

im it at io n Lo ui s Vu it to n b ag . Rick etts ag reedto sel l the ba g, an d t he ve nd orga ve he r a b ro wn h an db ag forhe r pe rs on al be lo ng in gs . Rick etts carr ie d the ha ndba g o n he r tr ip to th e Uni te s St at es , no t kno win g t ha t an yth in g was co nc eal edin si de . The da y aft er h er i ni ti al de te nt io n, h owe ve r, Ri ck etts to ldth e ag en ts th at , whi le in Ja m ai ca, s he m ettwo in di vi du al s, Ken ric k a ndJu ni or . She was a t the craf t m ark et wit h Ken ric k a ndsaw h im an d J un io r di sc us s s om ethi ng with t he ve nd or . Kenri ck th enbro ug htRic ke tt s t o t he ve nd or , andth e v en do r pa ss eda ha ndba g t o R ic ke tt s. The ba g fe lthe av y , andRic ke tt s as ke d Ken ric k i f ev erythi ng was o ka y with i t. Ken ric k a ss ur edhe r th atth ere was no th in g i ll eg al ab ou t t he ba g, an d R ic ke tt s th ou gh t t he re m ig htha ve be enso m ethi ng in si de , li ke cu rren cy . Kenri ckto ldhe r th atsh e wou ldrece iv e a p ho ne cal l an d i ns tru ct io ns reg ard in g t he ba g wh ensh e returne d t o t he Uni te d S ta te s. The go ve rn m en t fu rth er i nt ro du cedth e te st im on y of Ha m il to n, the in fo rm an t. Ham il to n t es ti fie d t ha t h e b ecame frien ds with a n i nd iv idua l n am ed And re Ho ll an d, wh o o ffer edhi m anop po rtu ni ty to s m

ug gl e dru gs . Ham il to n reg ul arl y vi si te d Ho ll an d’s ap art m en t o n t he week en ds an d s aw Ri ck et ts th ere o n se ve ral oc cas io ns . At on e p oi nt , Ham il to n, Ho ll an d, an d R ic ke tt s d is cu ss ed va rio us way s i n wh ic h Ham il to n c ou ldsm ug gl e dru gs in to th e Uni te d S ta te s fr om 3Ja m ai ca. Ri ck et ts m en ti on edsev eral co nt act s i n J am ai ca wh o wo ul d p ro vi de th e

drug s, i nc lu di ng he r two co us in s. WhenHam il to n wen t t o J am ai ca o n a sm ug gl in g t rip , he m etRic ke tt s’s co us in s, an d t he y ga ve hi m pe ll et s o f co cai ne to swa ll ow. Ham il to n s ta te d tha t Ri ck etts wou ldrecrui t p eo pl e in Jamaica fo r th e drug sm ug gl in g o pe rat io n a ndth atHol la ndwou ldsel l t he dru gs . As the las t wi tn es s, the go ve rn m en t ca ll edJac qu el in e Gay le , a cu st od ia n o f reco rd s fo r Air J am ai ca. Gay le tes ti fie d t ha t Ri ck et ts m ad e 2 8 fl ig ht s (1 4 ro un d tri ps ) to an d fr om

Jamaica b etween20 06 an d Ap ril 20 10 . On Apr il 3, 2 01 0, Ri ck etts pu rch as eda ti ck etto tra ve l t o J am ai ca b etweenApri l 2 2n d a nd29 th . Thro ug h Gayle’s te st im on y , th e g ov ern m en t i ntro du cedsev eral fli gh t m an ife st s th atde ta il edth e p as se ng ers ’ na m es an d s eatass ig nm en ts on fli gh ts tak enby Ri ck etts . Two of

th e fl ig htm an ife st s s ho wedth atHol la ndan d R ic ke tt s h ad as si gn edsea ts clo se to each ot he r on two Air J am ai ca fl ig ht s t ha t o ccurredon Aug us t 1 1, 2 00 9, an d J anua ry 8, 2 01 0, re sp ect iv el y . Ri ck et ts ob

jecte d t o t he fli gh t m an ife st s co nt ai ni ng Hol la nd ’s nam e. Sh e arg ue d t ha t t he go ve rn m en t was att em pt in g t o “ sm ear” he r by ass oc ia ti ng he r wit h a m ajor dru g d eal er an d i m

pl y in g t ha t s he was i nv ol ve d i n d ru g t raff ic ki ng on da te s n otch arg edin th e in di ct m en t. The go ve rn m en t re sp on de d t ha t t he ev id en ce co rro bo rat edHam il to n’s t es ti m on y by sho win g t ha t Ri ck et ts was i nv ol ve d i n d ru g 4tra ffi ck in g.

The di stric t co urt o ve rru le d R ic ke tt s’s o bjec ti on , fin di ng th atth e fl ig ht m an ife st s wer e p ro ba ti ve be cau se th ey co rro bo rat edHam il to n’s t es ti m on y by sh owi ng a rel at io ns hi p o r a p ot en ti al rel at io ns hi p b etweenRic ke tt s an d Ho ll an d. The co urt al so fou ndth atth e p reju di ci al effe ctof t hi s ev id en ce d idno t subs ta nt ia ll y

ou twei gh it s p ro ba ti ve va lu e. Afte r th e g ov ern m en t re st ed , Ric ke tt s h ers el f to okth e st an d. Sh e te st ifi ed th atsh e to okm an y

fli gh ts to Jamaica b ecau se sh e was fro m Jamaica an d m an y

of he r fam il y

m em be rs an d fr ie nd s l iv edin th atco un try. Rick etts in di cat edth atth e pu rp os e o f he r la te stvi si t t o J am ai ca was to att en d h er hus ba nd ’s un cl e’s fu ne ral . Her h us ba nddi d n otgo to th e fune ral be cau se hi s p as sp ort ex pi redan d h e h ad tro ub le ren ewin g i t due to anin co rrec t s pe ll in g o n h is bi rth cert ifi cat e. Ric ke tt s st at edth atsh e d idno t b rin g a ny do cu m en ta ti on to pro ve th athe r hu sb an d i nt en de d to att en d t he fun eral be cau se sh e d idno t t hi nkth is in fo rm at io n was rel ev an t t o h er cas e. Ri ck et ts tes ti fie d t ha t, t owa rdth e en d o f he r st ay inJamaica o n Ap ril 29 , 20 10 , sh e wen t t o acraf

t m ark etto m eetKenr ic k, h er ac qu ai nt an ce. Sh e d idno t kn ow t ha t Ken ric k was in vo lv edin dru g a ct iv it y , andhe ne ve r as ke d h er t o c arry drug s. Ken ric k h ada fri en d wh o wo rk edat t he m ark et , andth e fri en d a sk ed 5Ri ck etts forhe r im it at io n Lo ui s Vu it to n b ag . Rick etts ag reedto sel l t he ba g, b ut

to ldth e fri en d tha t s he ha d n owh ere t o p uthe r th in gs . The fri en d t ol d R ic ke tt s n ot to worry an d g av e h er a b ro wn h an db ag th atwas b ran d n ew with atag st il l at ta ch ed . Rick et ts di d n otno ti ce an yth in g s us pi ci ou s ab ou t t he ba g a ndpl acedhe r th in gs in it . Ri ck et ts furth er t es ti fie d t ha t s he m etHol la ndin Ju ne 20 09 an d t al ke d t o hi m oc cas io na ll y . She an d Ho ll an d n ev er d is cu ss eddru gs , dru g s m ug gl in g, o r Ham il to n, an d s he di d n otvo lu nt eer t o s m ug gl e dru gs for

Hol la nd . Rick et ts st at ed th atsh e d idno t kno w Hol la ndwas adru g d eal er. Afte r Ri ck et ts ’s tes ti m on y , th e de fen se res te d a ndm ov edfor acqui tt al , bu t t he di st ric t co urt d en ie d t he m ot io n. The jury ul ti m at el y

co nv ic te d h er o n b oth c ou nt s. A pro ba ti on off

ic er p rep aredth e p res en te nc e in ve st ig at io n re po rt ( “ PSI” ) an d c al cu la te d R ic ke tt s’s g ui de li ne ran ge . The o ffi cer s ethe r ba se off en se lev el at 26 , pu rs uantto U.S.S.G. § 2 D1.1 (c), an d d idno t ad d a ny enh an cem en ts or reduc ti on s. Be cau se Ric ke tt s h adno pri orco nv ic ti on s, s he was p la cedin to cri m in al hi st ory

cat eg ory I, whi ch , com

bi ne d wi thth e o ffen se lev el of 2 6, ge ne rat eda gu id el in e ran ge of 6 3 t o 7 8 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t. The go ve rn m en t fi le d an o bjec ti onto th e PSI, ar gu in g t ha t Ri ck et ts sh ou ld rece iv e a two- le ve l en ha nc em en t fo r ob stru ct io n o f jus ti ce, p ur su an t t o U.S.S.G. 6§ 3 C1 .1. At t he sen te nc in g h eari ng , th e d is tri ctco urt ag reedwith t he go ve rn m en t

an d app li edth e two -le ve l en hanc em en t, fi nd in g t ha t Ri ck et ts wil lfu ll y att em pt ed to ob st ru ctjus ti ce b y

co m m it ti ng pe rjury. The co urt ex pl ai ne d, am on g o th er th in gs , th atRic ke tt s l ie d abo utth e p ur po se of h er l at es t t rip to Jamaica an d pr ov id edanim

pl au si bl e ex pl an at io n fo r why her h us ba nddi d n otacco m pany her to hi s u nc le ’s fun eral . The co urt n ot edth atRic ke tt s p ur ch as edhe r pl an e ti ck et19 da y s i n a dv an ce o f th e fu ne ral . The co urt al so fou ndth atRic ke tt s l ie d wh ensh e st at edth atsh e d idno t kno w th atHol la ndwas adru g d eal er. W it h t he two -le ve l en ha nc em en t, Ri ck et ts ’s off en se lev el be cam e 2 8, wh ic h, co m bi ne d wi tha cri m in al hi st ory cat eg ory of I , y ie ld eda gu id el in e ran ge of 7 8 t o 97 m on th s i n p ris on . The co urt u lt im at el y sen te nc edhe r to 90 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t o n e ach co un t, t o b e se rv edco nc urren tl y . II. ANALYSIS A. Evid en ti ary Ru li ng W e rev ie w th e d is tri ctco urt’s ev id en ti ary ru li ng s fo r ab us e o f di sc ret io n. Uni te d Sta tes v. McGa ri ty , 66 9 F .3d12 18 , 12 32 (11 th Cir . 20 12 ). Ru le 40 4( b) pr ov id es th atev id en ce o f “ a cri m e, wro ng , or o th er ac t i s n otadm is si bl e to pro ve a pe rs on ’s cha ract er i n o rd er t o s ho w th aton a pa rti cu lar oc cas io n t he pe rs on act ed in acco rd an ce wi th th e ch arac te r,” al th ou gh su ch ev id en ce m ay be adm is si bl e “ fo r 7an ot he r pu rp os e, su ch as p ro vi ng m ot iv e, op po rtu ni ty, in te nt , pre pa rat io n, p la n,

kn owl ed ge , id en ti ty, ab se nc e o f m is ta ke , or l ackof a cci de nt .” Fed .R.Evi d. 4 04 (b ). Ru le 40 4( b) do es no t ap pl y to ev id en ce tha t i s “ (1 ) anun ch arg edoff en se whi charo se ou t o f th e sa m e tr an sa ct io n o r se rie s o f tr an sa ct io ns as t he ch arg ed of fen se , (2) ne ces sa ry

to co m pl et e th e st ory

of t he cri m e, or(3) in ex tri cab ly in te rtwi ne d wi th th e ev id en ce re ga rd in g t he ch arg edoff en se .” Uni te d Sta tes v. Edo ua rd , 48 5 F .3d13 24 , 13 44 (11 th Cir . 20 07 ) (quo ta ti on om it te d) . Mor eo ve r,

“ [e]vi de nc e, no t p artof t he cri m e ch arg edbu t p ert ai ni ng to th e ch ai n o f ev en ts ex pl ai ni ng th e co nt ex t, m ot iv e, an d s et -up o f th e cri m e, is pro pe rly adm it te d i f li nk edin ti m e an d c irc um st an ces with t he ch arg edcri m e, orform s an in te gr al an d na tu ral pa rt o f anacco un t o f th e cri m e, oris ne ces sa ry to co m pl et e th e st ory

of t he cri m e fo r th e jury.” Id

. (qu ot at io n a ndalt erat io n o m it te d) . Whe th er o r no t t he ev id en ce o f un ch arg edact iv it y li es withi n t he sco pe of Rul e 4 04 (b ), itm us t s at is fy th e requi rem en ts of Rul e 4 03 . Id. 1 Inth is cas e, ev id en ce tha t Ri ck et ts satne ar Ho ll an d o n t wo fl ig ht s b etween Rule 403 provides: “The court may exclude rele vant evidenc e if its probative va lue is 1 substantially

outweighed by

a dang er of

one or more of the following : unfair pr ejudice, c onfusing the issues, misleadingthe jury , undue dela y , wastingtime, or nee dlessly prese nting c umulative evidenc e.” F ed.R.Evid. 403.

8th e Uni te d S ta te s an d J am ai ca fe ll ou ts id e th e sc op e o f Ru le 40 4( b) be cau se it

se rv edto ex pl ai n “ th e co nt ex t, m ot iv e, an d s et -up o f th e cri m e,” an d fo rm ed“ an in te gr al an d n atur al part” of t he acco un t o f th e cri m e. Se e id. The m ai n c on te st ed is su e attri al was wh ethe r Ri ck et ts kn ew ab ou t the co cai ne hi dd enin he r ha ndba g. The go ve rn m en t’s p rimary ev id en ce re ga rd in g t hi s i ss ue cam e th ro ug h Ham il to n, who tes ti fie d, es se nt ia ll y , th atRic ke tt s an d Ho ll an d wer e to ge th er i nv ol ve d i n a co ns pi racy to s m

ug gl e dru gs fro m

Jamaica i nt o t he Uni te d S ta te s. Th e se at as si gn m en t ev id en ce co rro bo rat edHam il to n’s t es ti m on y by sho win g aco nn ect io n be twee n R ic ke tt s an d Ho ll an d. Evi de nc e o f th e p ai r’s dr ug -s m ug gl in g c on sp ira cy ex pl ai ne d wh y

Ric ke tt s ca rri edco cai ne in he r handba g o n h er l at es t fl ig htfro m Ja m ai ca o n Ap ril 29 , 20 10 . In thi s l ig ht , th e se at -as si gn m en t ev id en ce d idno t co ns ti tu te in adm is si bl e ex tri ns ic ev id en ce u nd er Ru le 40 4( b) . Se e Edo ua rd , 48 5 F.3 d a t 1 34 4. Fu rth erm or e, ev id en ce o f th e se atass ig nm en ts di d n otvi ol at e Ru le 40 3. The ev id en ce was pro ba ti ve be cau se itco rro bo rat edHam il to n’s t es ti m on y , whi ch fo rm edaness en ti al pa rt o f th e g ov ern m en t’s ca se . The p reju di ci al im pa ctof t he ev id en ce, h owe ve r, was m in im al , as i t s ho wedon ly tha t Ri ck et ts satne ar Ho ll an d du rin g t wo fl ig ht s b etweenth e Uni te d S ta te s an d J am ai ca. Alt ho ug h R ic ke tt s’s se at in g n ex t t o adru g d eal er m ay ha ve cas t h er i n ane ga ti ve li gh t, h er as so ci at io n 9wit h Ho ll an d was alr eady well est ab li sh edth ro ug h Ham il to n’s t es ti m on y , whi ch Ri ck etts do es no t ch al le ng e o n app eal . Accor di ng ly, an y pre jud ic ia l i m

pa ctof t he se at -as si gn m en t ev id en ce d idno t o ut weig h i ts pro ba ti ve va lu e, ren de rin g i t adm is si bl e u nd er Ru le 40 3. Se e Fed .R.Evi d. 4 03 ; Uni te d Sta tes v. S mith , 45 9 F .3d 12 76 , 12 95 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ) (“ [W] e lo okat t he ev id en ce i n ali gh t m os t fa vo rab le to it s ad m is si on , m ax im iz in g i ts pro ba ti ve va lu e an d m in im iz in g i ts un du e pr ejud ic ia l i m

pa ct .” (quo ta ti onom it te d) ). In l ig htof the for eg oi ng , th e d is tri ct co urt d idno t ab us e it s d is cret io n i n a dm it ti ng th e ev id en ce o f se atass ig nm en ts . Se e Edo ua rd , 48 5 F .3dat 1 34 4; Smi th , 45 9 F .3dat 1 29 5. B. Su ffi ci en cy

of t he Evi de nc e W e rev ie w de no vo th e su ffi ci en cy of t he ev id en ce t o s up po rt acri m in al co nv ic ti on . Uni te d Sta tes v. Fr az ie r , 60 5 F .3d12 71 , 12 78 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ). In m ak in g thi s d et erm in at io n, “ we vi ew th e ev id en ce i n t he li gh t m os t fa vo rab le to th e g ov ern m en t, wi thall reas on ab le in fere nc es an d c red ib il it y ch oi ces m ad e in th e go ve rn m en t’s fa vo r.” Id. (qu ot at io n o m it te d) . In a c riminal tri al , fact s m ay be pr ov edby circu m st an ti al ev id en ce, “ ev enif t he jury m ig htdra w ot he r rea so nabl e in fere nc es fro m

th e ci rcu m st an ti al ev id en ce.” Uni te d Sta tes v. Hen ry , 92 0 F .2d 87 5, 8 77 (11 th Cir . 19 91 ) (quo ta ti on om it te d) . To co nv ic t a d efen da ntun de r 21 U.S.C. §§ 95 2( a) an d 8 41 (a), the go ve rn m en t m us t p ro ve th atth e d efen da nt 10kn owi ng ly im po rte d a ndpo ss es se d aco nt ro ll edsubs ta nc e. Uni te d Sta tes v. Pea rt , 88 8 F .2d10 1, 1 04 n.2 (11 th Cir . 19 89 ). Inth is cas e, th e g ov ern m en t p res en te d s uf fic ie ntcir cu m st an ti al ev id en ce t o sh ow, b ey on d areas on ab le do ub t, tha t Ri ck et ts kn ew ab ou t the dru gs hi dd enin he r ha ndba g. Ham il to n’s t es ti m on y est ab li sh edth atRic ke tt s, al on g wi thHol la nd , pa rti ci pa te d i n asch em e to sm ug gl e dru gs fro m

Jamaica t o t he Uni te d S ta te s, th ereb y rai si ng anin fere nc e th atRic ke tt s kno win gl y sm ug gl edco cai ne fro m Ja m ai ca o n Ap ril 29 , 20 10 . Ham il to n’s t es ti m on y was s up po rte d b y

ev id en ce tha t Ri ck etts to oknu m ero us fli gh ts to Jamaica wi th in fou r y ears , th atsh e sa t n ear Hol landontwo of t he fli gh ts , andth athe r m os t re cen t fl ig htwith Ho ll an d oc cu rredles s tha n fo ur

m on th s p rio r to th e in st an t o ffen se . Mor eo ve r, aft er b ei ng arre st edat the air

po rt, R ic ke tt s g av e d iff

eri ng st at em en ts reg ard in g h ow s he cam e to po ss es s t he ha ndba g. Se e Uni te d Sta tes v. Fa rr is , 77 F.3d39 1, 3 94 -9 5 (1 1t h Ci r. 19 96 ) (h ol di ng th atev id en ce o f a d efen da nt ’s con fli ct in g s ta te m en ts to law en fo rcem en t ag en ts supp orte d h is co nv ic ti on ). Fin al ly, Ri ck et ts to okth e st an d a nd ga ve a rel at iv el y

in no cen t ex pl an at io n o f ho w sh e o bt ai ne d t he handba g, b uthe r te st im on y was n otcred ib le , as i nd ic at edby the jury’ s v erd ic t, an d t hi s s erv edas ad di ti on al ev id en ce o f he r gu il t. Se e Uni te d Sta tes v. J imi ne z , 56 4 F .3d12 80 , 12 85 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ) (h ol di ng th ata de fen da nt ’s owntes ti m on y supp orte d h is 11co nv ic ti on s b ecau se th e jury was pe rm it te d t o re ject t ha t t es ti m on y

an d c on si de r it as subs ta nt iv e ev id en ce o f gu il t). Thu s, the ev id en ce i n R ic ke tt s’s ca se was m or e th ansu ffi ci en t t o c on vi cthe r of im po rta ti on an d p os se ss io n o f co cai ne . Se e Uni te d Sta tes v. Qu il ca -Ca rp io , 11 8 F .3d71 9, 7 20 -2 2 (1 1th C ir. 1 99 7) (ho ld in g th atth e ev id en ce was su ffi ci en t t o c on vi cta de fen da ntforim po rta ti on an d po ss es si on , wher e th e ev id en ce s ho wedon ly tha t t he de fen dant ’s bag co nt ai ne d ab ou t 8 .5 p ou nd s o f co cai ne in a hi dd enco m pa rtment a ndwas u nu su al ly heav y ). C. Enh an cem en t fo r Obs tru ct io n o f Ju st ic e In r ev ie win g t he di st ric t co urt’s i m po si ti on of a n o bs tru ct io n- of -jus ti ce en ha nc em en t, we re vi ew th e co urt’s fa ctua l fi nd in gs for cle ar erro r an d i ts ap pl ic at io n o f th os e fi nd in gs to th e Gui de li ne s de no vo . Uni te d Sta tes v. Do e , 66 1 F.3 d 5 50 , 56 5 (1 1t h C ir. 2 01 1) , cer t. d en ie d , 13 2 S .Ct. 1 64 8 (2 01 2) . Sect io n 3C 1.1 of t he Gui de li ne s p ro vi de s fo r a two- le ve l en ha nc em en t fo r de fen dant s wh o ha ve “wil lfu ll y

ob st ru ct edor i m

pe de d, o r at te m

pt edto ob st ru ctor i m

pe de , th e adm in is tra ti on of ju st ic e with re sp ectto th e in ve st ig at io n, p ro se cu ti on , or se nt en ci ng of t he in st an t o ffen se of c on vi ct io n.” U.S.S.G. § 3C 1.1 . A defe nd an t m ay ob stru ctjus ti ce b y

co m m it ti ng pe rjury, whi chis de fin edas “ fal se tes ti m on y co nc ern in g am at eri al m at te r wit h t he wil lfu l i nt en t t o p ro vi de fal se tes ti m on y , rat he r th anas ares ul t o f co nf us io n, m is ta ke , or faul ty m em ory .” Uni te d Sta tes v.

12Si ngh , 29 1 F .3d75 6, 7 63 (11 th Cir . 20 02 ) (quo ta ti on om it te d) . In re vi ewin g a

di st ric t co urt’s fi nd in g o f pe rjury, w e acc or d “ gr eatde fere nc e to th e d is tri ctco urt’s cred ib il it y

de te rm in at io ns .” Id. (quo ta ti on om it te d) . The di stric t co urt d idno t cl earl y err i n fi nd in g t ha t Ri ck et ts ob st ru ct ed jus ti ce b y co m m it ti ng pe rjury. W it h re ga rdto th e p ur po se of h er l at es t t rip to Ja m ai ca, wh ic h e nd edon Apri l 2 9, 2 01 0, Ri ck et ts in di cat edth atsh e wen t t o a tt en d he r hu sb an d’s u nc le ’s fun eral . Howev er, as th e co urt n ot ed , sh e h adbo ug htth e pl an e ti ck eton Apri l 3 , 20 10 , app ro xi m at el y 19 da y s b efo re co m

m en ci ng th e tr ip . Co m m on kn owl ed ge su gg es ts th ata fu ne ral us ua ll y oc cu rs les s t ha n 1 9 d ay s af te r a p ers on di es , and , lo gi cal ly, Ri ck et ts wou ldno t p la n t o a tt en d t he fun eral whi le th e u nc le was s ti ll ali ve . W e d o n otde ny the po ss ib il ity th atth e unc le ’s bu ria l oc cu rredm or e th an19 day s af te r hi s d eat h, b utRic ke tt s fa il edto pro du ce an y ev id en ce t o s up po rt t hi s v ers io n o f ev en ts , su ch as ade ath c ert ifi cat e o r affi da vi t. Mo reo ve r, th e co urt h adbro addi sc ret io n n otto be li ev e Ri ck et ts ’s tes ti m on y as t o why her h us ba nddi d n otatt en d the fun eral . Se e Sin gh , 29 1 F .3dat 7 63 . Thu s, we can no t s ay

th atth e d is tri ctco urt cl earl y erre d i n fi nd in g t ha t Ri ck et ts li edab ou t th e p ur po se of h er trav el . Se e Uni te d Sta tes v. N di ay e , 43 4 F .3d12 70 , 13 05 (11 th Ci r. 20 06 ) (s ta ti ng th ata di st ric t co urt’s ch oi ce b etweentwo pe rm is si bl e v ie ws o f th e ev id en ce ca nn otbe cle ar erro r). 13The di stric t co urt al so di d n otcle arl y err i n fi nd in g tha t Ri ck et ts li edwhen sh e at te st edto ha vi ng no kn owl ed ge of Ho ll an d’s dru g d eal in g. As de sc rib ed ab ov e, Ham il to n t es ti fie d t ha t Ri ck et ts an d Ho ll an d p art ic ip at edin a sc he m e to im po rt d ru gs fro m

Jamaica an d t ha t Ho ll an d was th e o ne who so ldth e dru gs . Cert ai nl y , th e d is tri ctco urt h adbro addi sc ret io n t o b el ie ve Ham il to n, es pe ci al ly in li gh t o f th e jury’ s v erd ic t. Se e Sin gh , 29 1 F .3dat 7 63 ; se e a ls o Uni te d Sta tes v. La wr en ce , 97 2 F .2d15 80 , 15 83 (11 th Cir . 19 92 ) (s ta ti ng th ata co urt’s fi nd in g o f pe rjury m us t b e “ in fo rm edbu t n otdi ct at edby the jury’ s v erd ic t” ). Acco rd in gl y , th e d is tri ctco urt d idno t cl earl y err i n fi nd in g t ha t Ri ck et ts co m m it te d p erjury , and pr op erl y ap pl ie d t he two -le ve l en ha nc em en t u nd er § 3C 1.1 . Se e Uni te d Sta tes v. Val le jo , 29 7 F .3d11 54 , 11 68 -6 9 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 2) (up ho ld in g t he ob stru ct io n- ofjus ti ce en ha nc em en t fo r pe rjury where t he de fen da nt ’s st at em en ts at t ria l wer e co nt rad ic te d b y

go ve rn m en t wi tn es se s) . In l ig htof the for eg oi ng , we affi rm Ri ck etts ’s con vi ct io ns an d s en te nc es . AFFIRMED.

14