FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P E A LS E LE V EN T HC IRC U IT AUGUST 25, 2006 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK

Honora ble Adria n G. Duplantier , United States District Judg e for the Easter

n District of * L ouisiana, 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. 05- 13375

________________________ D . C. D o c k e tN o . 0 4 - 0 0 2 1 2 - CR- CB 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 lla n t, v ersu s C L A U D I N A B E N I T E Z , a .k .a . C la u d in a C a m p o , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lle e .

________________________ 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 ab a ma

_________________________ ( A u gu s t 25, 2006) B ef ore H U L L and W IL S O N , C i rc ui tJudg es , and D U P L A N T IE R , D i stri ctJudg e. *2

W IL S O N , C i rc ui tJudg e: T hi s c a s e i nvol ve s the i nt e rpr e t a t i on of the U ni t e d S t a t e s S e nt e nc i ng G ui del i nes M anual , S ec t i on 2J1. 3(c) , w hi ch deal s w i th sent enci ng for per j ury c om m i tt e d “ i n r e s pe c tt o” a c r i m i na l of f e ns e . T he G ove rnm e ntappe a l s C l a udi na B e ni t e z ’ s s e nt e nc e , a r gui ng tha tthe di s tr i c tc our tm i s appl i e d the G ui de l i ne s . T he G ove rnm e nta r gue s tha tB e ni t e z ’ s pe r j ury w a s “ i n r e s pe c tt o” he rs i s t e r ’ s drug co n sp irac y trial. B en it ez ar g u es th at th e p er ju ry w as “i n re sp ec t t o ” h ersister ’s f a ilu r e to ap p e a rf

o rth e d ru g c o n s p ir a c y tr ia l. T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t a g r e e d w ith B eni t ez , adop t ed the prob at i on offi ce r’ s pre se nt ence i nv es t i gat i on re po rt(“ P S I” ), and sent ence d B eni t ez t o a ye arand a day fol l ow ed by three -y ea rs supervi se d r e le a s e . B e c a u s e B e n ite z a d m itte d in h e rp le a th a t s h e m a d e m a te r ia l lie s ab o u t a m a tt e rbe f

or e the c our t , a nd be c a us e the m a tt e rbe f or e the c our tw a s the drug c o n s p ir a c y tr ia l, w e f

in d th a t th e p e r

ju ry w a s “in r e s p e c t to ” th e d ru g c o n s p ir a c y . I. B ACKGROUN D B e ni t e z ’ s s i s t e r , M a r i a G a r c i a , w a s c ha r ge d w i th c ons pi r a c y t o di s tr i but e 100 ki l og ra m s of c ocai ne. G ar ci a w as re l ea se d o n the cond i t i on thatshe a tt end t he tri al w i th B e ni t e z a c t i ng a s thi r d pa r ty c us t odi a n. B oth G a r c i a a nd B e ni t e z tr a ve l e d by bus f r om H ous t on, T e xa s t o M obi l e , A l aba m a f orthe tr i a l . T he y a l s o a tt e nde d the f i r s tda y of

tr i a l t oge the r , a l though B e ni t e z w a s e xc l ude d f r om the c our tr oom3

b e c a u s e s h e w a s to te s tif y a t th e tr ia l. T he ni ghtbe f

or e the tr i a l ’ s s e c ond da y , G a r c i a f l e d f r om M obi l e t o H ous t on v i a a t ax i cab . B en i t ez, w h en q u est i o n ed th e n ex td ay ab o u tG arci a’ s w h ereab o u t s, st at ed thatshe di d n otkn ow w here G ar ci a w as . S he m ade these st at em ent s und er oath t o the j ud ge before tri al com m ence d thatm orni ng and agai n l at eri n b oth h er di re ctand cross exam i nat i on , w hi l e t es t i fy i ng as a G ov ernm entw i tness . T he tri al co n ti n u ed in G ar cia’s a b se n ce b ec au se th e trial ju d g e d eter m in ed fr o m B en it ez ’s statem en ts th at G ar cia lef t v o lu n tarily. B ef

o re testifyin g ab o u t G ar cia’s w h ereab o u t s as a G o v ern m en tw i tn ess, B en i t ez t est i fi ed tru th fu l l y fo r th e d efen se abou ti ss ues havi ng a di re ctbear i ng on the drug conspi ra cy offe nse. G a r c i a w a s l a t e ra rr e s t e d i n H ous t on. W he n the a uthor i t i e s i nt e r vi e w e d the t axi cab d ri ver w ho drov e G ar ci a f rom M ob i l e t o H ou st on , he i dent i fi ed B eni t ez as h e lp in g G a r c ia n e g o tia te th e H o u s to n f a r e th e n ig h t th a t G a r c ia f le d M o b ile . A gr a nd j ury l a t e ri ndi c t e d B e ni t e z on f i ve c ount s : pe r

j ury ( C ount s 1- 3) , a i di ng a nd ab e ttin g f

a ilu r e to ap p e a r( C o u n t 4 ) , a n d a c c e s s o ry a f te rth e f a c t ( C o u n t 5 ) , in vi ol at i on of 18 U . S . C . §§ 16 23 (a ), 31 46 (a ), 2, and 3 , re spec t i vel y. B eni t ez pl ed g u ilty to a ll o f

th e c h a r g e s . A tse nt enci ng , the coun t s w er e group ed t og ether i n the P S I bec ause they i nv ol ved “ tw o o r m ore a ct s or tra nsac t i on s c on nect ed by a c om m on cr i m i nal4

obj e c t i ve orc ons t i tut i ng pa r tof a c om m on s c he m e orpl a n. ” U . S . S e nt e nc i ng G ui del i nes M anual § 3 D 1. 2(b) (200 4). T he P S I not ed that , pu rs uantt o § 3D 1. 3(a) , the of f e ns e l e ve l appl i c abl e t o the gr oup w a s the of f e ns e l e ve l f

orthe m os ts e r i ous o f th e g ro u p ed co u n t s, o r i n o th er w o rd s, th e co u n tw h i ch p ro v i d ed fo r th e h i g h est o ffen se l ev el . C o u n t4 (ai d i n g an d ab ett i n g fai l u re t o ap p ear) yi el d ed th e h i g h est o f f e n s e le v e l o f

th e c o u n ts in th e g r o u p a n d w a s u s e d f o rth e g r o u p ’s o f

f e n s e le v e l. A ft erm aki ng the approp ri at e a dj ustm ent s, the t ot al offe nse l evel w as 13 , w hi ch yield ed a s en ten cin g ra n g e o f 1 2 -1 8 m o n th s a fterac co u n ti n g fo r B en it ez ’s C at eg o ry I cri m i n al h i st o ry. T he G ove rnm e ntobj e c t e d t o the of f e ns e l e ve l c a l c ul a t i on a r gui ng tha tthe pe r j ury c ount s y i e l de d the hi ghe s tof f e ns e l e ve l . T he G ove rnm e nta r gue d tha tthe p er ju ry o cc u rr ed “i n re sp ec t t o ” th e u n d er lyin g d ru g co n sp irac y trial, n o t G ar cia’s f a ilu r e to ap p e a r . I t r e a s o n e d th a t a lth o u g h th e p e r ju ry c o n c e rn e d th e f

a ilu r e to appear, B eni t ez ’ s s w orn d eni al of pri or kn ow l edge of G ar ci a’ s f l i gh tm ade her a m o r e c r e d ib le w itn e s s a n d th u s b o ls te r e d h e rte s tim o n y th a t d ir e c tly r e la te d to G ar ci a’ s drug con spi ra cy offe nse. A cc ordi ng t o the G ov ernm ent , the corre ct of f e ns e l e ve l s houl d ha ve be e n 28 w hi c h w oul d ha ve y i e l de d a s e nt e nc e r a ngi ng fro m 7 8 t o 9 7 m o n th s aft er acco u n t i n g fo r h er cri m i n al h i st o ry. T he di stri ctcourtre

j ec t ed the G ov ernm ent ’ s a rgum ent s a nd foun d that5

B eni t ez ’ s deni al of kn ow l edge abou ther s i st er ’ s f l i gh tdi d n otenhance her c r e di bi l i ty . T he di s tr i c tc our ta l s o f ound tha t , e xc e ptf

orthe t e s t i m ony aboutthe f l i ght , B e ni t e z ’ s t e s t i m ony w a s true a nd tha tf a l s e t e s t i m ony aboutf

l i ghtc oul d not have l ed t o a m i sc arri age of j ust i ce . II. S TA ND ARDS O F R EVIEW W e r e v ie w d e n o v o th e s e n te n c in g c o u r t’s c h o ic e o f th e ap p r o p r ia te gui de l i ne t o appl y t o a f a c tua l s c e na r i o a nd i t s l e ga l c onc l us i ons i nt e rpr e t i ng the G u id e lin e s . Se e U

ni t e d Stat e s v . Mi r anda , 348 F . 3d 1322, 1330 ( 11th C i r . 2003) ( pe rc ur i a m ) . “ W e r e vi e w the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s f i ndi ngs of

f a c ti n s e nt e nc i ng f

or cl ea r e rr or. ” U

ni t ed Stat es v. D eV

egt er , 43 9 F . 3d 12 99 , 13 03 (11t h C i r. 20 06 ). III. D ISCUSSI ON S ec t i on 2J1. 3 o f the G ui del i nes gi ves the base offe nse l evel for per j ury. “ If the offens e i nv ol ved p er j ury, subo rnat i on of perj ury, or w i tness bri bery i n res pect t o a cr i m i nal offe nse, appl y § 2X 3. 1 (A cc es sory A ft erthe F ac t ) i n res pectt o that cr i m i nal offe nse, i f the re sul t i ng offe nse l evel i s gre at erthan t hatdet erm i ned [ o th e rw is e u n d e r§ 2 J 1 .3 ].” U .S . S e n te n c in g G u id e lin e s M a n u a l § 2 J 1 .3 ( c ) ( 2 0 0 4 ) . A c c or di ng t o § 2X 3. 1( a ) ( 1) , the ba s e of f e ns e l e ve l i s “ 6 l e ve l s l ow e rtha n the offe nse l evel for the un derl yi ng offe nse. ” “ F or pu rposes of thi s gui del i ne,

‘ unde r l y i ng of

f e ns e ’ m e a ns the of

f e ns e a s t o w hi c h the de f e nda nti s c onvi c t e d of6

bei ng an ac ce ss ory . . . . ” I d. § 2X 3. 1 c m t . n. 1 ( 2004) . F orthe purpos e of det erm i ni ng the approp ri at e off ense l evel for per

j ury, the G ov ernm entar gu es that the un derl yi ng offe nse w as the drug conspi ra cy and further a rgues thatthe perj ury w a s “in r e s p e c t to ” th e d ru g c o n s p ir a c y tr ia l. A lth o u g h th e r e a r e n o E le v e n th C ir c u it c a s e s in te rp r e tin g th e p h r a s e “in r e s p e c t to a c r im e ,” o th e rc ir c u its h a v e e x a m in e d th e p h r a s e . See U ni t ed Stat es v. B ova , 3 5 0 F .3 d 2 2 4 ( 1 s t C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) ; U ni t e d Stat e s v . Sul e i m an , 208 F . 3d 32 ( 2d C i r . 2000) . A l though the s e c a s e s a r e f a c tua l l y di s t i ngui s habl e f r om the pr e s e nt ca se , thei r s t at em ent s on the S ent enci ng C om m i ss i on ’ s pol i cy and i nt entar e in s tru c tiv e . I n B ova , the de f

e nda ntl i e d dur i ng a ba i l he a r i ng abouttw o a s s a ul t s f or w hi c h he w a s try i ng t o s e c ur e ba i l . 350 F . 3d a t226. T he i s s ue w a s w he the rthe p e r ju ry w a s in r e s p e c t to th e a s s a u lts . T h e b a il h e a r in g w a s a p r o c e e d in g to d e te r m in e w h e th e rs u p e r v is e d r e le a s e s h o u ld b e r e v o k e d . Id . a t230- 31. T he de c i s i ve c ons i de r a t i on f orthe c our tw a s the c onne c t i on of the pe r j ury t o the p r o s e c u tio n o f

a c r im in a l o f

f e n s e . I d. at2 3 0 -3 1 . T h e co u rtco n cl u d ed , “ [t ] h e cro ss re fe re nce i s bas ed on the po t ent i al t o d er ai l or m i sc arry a j ud i ci al or si m i l ar proceedi ng di re ct ed t o ano ther c ri m e . . . . [T he defendant ’ s] l i es had l i tt l e pot ent i al to in te r f e r e w ith p r o s e c u tio n o f

th e c r im e s lie d ab o u t w h ic h is w h y th e ir7

se ri ou snes s i s nota s ui t abl e m ea sure of B ov a’ s per j ury . . . . ” I

d. a t230- 31. I n Sul e i m an , the de f

e nda ntl i e d dur i ng a gr a nd j ury i nve s t i ga t i on about a s s o c ia tin g w ith in d iv id u a ls in v o lv e d in th e 1 9 9 3 W o r ld T r a d e C e n te rb o m b in g . 20 8 F . 3d at34 -35. T he di stri ctcourtdi d n otappl y § 2J1. 3' s c ross re fe re nce, because the ca se w as on e “ w here nei ther the qu es t i on s a sked no r the answ er s gi ven re fe re nced any cr i m i nal offe nse. ” I d. a t36 ( i nt e rna l quot a t i ons a nd c i t a t i ons om i tt e d) . D i s a gr e e i ng w i th the di s tr i c tc our t , the S e c ond C i r c ui the l d, “ T he pu rpose of the ‘ i n res pectt o’ enhancem enti s t o tre atm ore s ever el y per j uri es that ri sk an i ncom pl et e or a n i nacc urat e i nv es t i gat i on or tri al of a c ri m i nal offe nse. ” I d. a t 3 9 ( in te rn a l c ita tio n s o m itte d ) . Sul e i m an d eal tw i th p erj u ry b efo re a g ran d j u ry, w hi ch the S ec on d C i rc ui tconcl ud ed “ w i l l al m ostal w ay s m er i tenhanced p u n is h m e n t” b e c a u s e o f a g r a n d ju ry ’s b r o a d in v e s tig a to ry s c o p e . Id . T he S e nt e nc i ng C om m i s s i on ha s t a ke n a s i m i l a rappr oa c h i n l i ke ni ng pe r j ury t o obs truc t i on of

j us t i c e . “ T he C om m i s s i on be l i e ve s tha tpe r j ury s houl d be tr e a t e d s i m i l a r l y t o obs truc t i on of j us t i c e . T he r e f

or e , the s a m e c ons i de r a t i ons f or enhanci ng a s ent ence ar e app l i ed i n the spec i fi c off ense char ac t er i st i cs , and an a lte rn a tiv e r e f

e r e n c e to th e g u id e lin e f o ra c c e s s o ry a f

te rth e f a c t [ § 2 X 3 .1 ] is m a d e .” U .S . S e n te n c in g G u id e lin e s M a n u a l § 2 J 1 .3 c m t. B a c k g r o u n d ( 2 0 0 4 ) . W e hol d i n thi s c a s e tha tf orpe r j ury t o be “ i n r e s pe c tt o” the drugIndeed, thedistrict court base d its holdi ngon the idea that the perjury did not impact the 1 drugconspiracy

trial bec ause it did not lessen B enitez’s cre dibility . 8 c ons pi r a c y , the pe r

j ury w oul d ha ve t o ha ve ha d the pot e nt i a l t o di s ruptthe go vernm ent ’ s i nv es t i gat i on or prosec ut i on of thatcr i m e. B eni t ez ’ s per j ury had th i s p o t en t i al . F o r a fal se st at em en tg i v en u n d er o ath i n a co u rtp ro ceed i n g t o ri se to th e le v e l o f

p e r ju ry , it m u s t b e a “m a te r ia l” s ta te m e n t. 1 8 U .S .C . § 1 6 2 3 ( a ) . A f a l s e s t a t e m e nti s m a t e r i a l i f “ i tw a s c apabl e of

i nf l ue nc i ng the tr i buna l on the i s s ue before i t . ” U

n ite d S ta te s v . R o b e r ts , 30 8 F . 3d 11 47 , 11 55 (11t h C i r. 20 02 ) ( per c u r ia m ) ; B lackm on v. U ni t ed Stat es , 1 0 8 F .2 d 5 7 2 , 5 7 3 - 7 4 ( 5 th C ir . 1 9 4 0 ) . A tf i r s tgl a nc e i ti s di f

f i c ul tt o s e e how B e ni t e z ’ s f a l s e s t a t e m e nt s c oul d ha ve “i n flu en ce d th e trib u n al o n th e iss u e b ef o re it ,” (n am ely, th e iss u e o f G ar cia’s gui l t ) . B e ni t e z onl y t e s t i f i e d f a l s e l y on the i s s ue of

he row n pa r t i c i pa t i on i n a i di ng 1 h e rs is te r ’s f

lig h t– B e n ite z te s tif

ie d tru th f u lly in a ll o th e rm a tte r s . T e llin g th e tru th w oul d notha ve s i gni f

i c a nt l y l e s s e ne d he rc r e di bi l i ty be c a us e ( 1) the j ury a l r e a dy k n e w th a t B e n ite z h a d f a ile d h e rd u ty a s a th ir d - p a r ty c u s to d ia n ; ( 2 ) B e n ite z w o u ld have been m ore c re di bl e i f s he had t ol d the truth; (3) B eni t ez l i ed t o p rot ec thers el f, nott o pr e ve ntG a r c i a f

r om be i ng puni s he d; ( 4) B e ni t e z t e s t i f i e d truthf ul l y on be ha l f of G a r c i a aboutm a tt e r s r e l a t e d t o the drug c ons pi r a c y a nd aboutthe v o lu n tarin es s o f G ar cia’s f li g h t; an d (5 ) th e g o v er n m en t w as ab le to u se B en it ez ’s te s tim o n y ab o u t G a r c ia ’s d is ap p e a r a n c e a s a f f ir m a tiv e e v id e n c e o f

G a r c ia ’s g u ilt.We note that our holdingis consistent with United States v. Bova , 350 F.3d 224 ( 1st Cir. 2 2003). In Bova , the per

jurious statements were not g iven in the trial itself but at the bail hearing . Id. at2 2 6 . T h e re f

o re , th e y w e rem at e ri alt o th eb ai lh e a ri n grath e r

th anth etri al . A c c o rdi n g l y, the Fir st Circuit held that the perjury was not in respe ct to the underlying a ssaults. Id. at 230-31. In th eins tant c a se , th eperj ur y wa s g iven in

thec rimin al trial it se lf

, a nd is t here fo remateri al to that trial, which e x isted to determine Ga rcia ’s guilt or innocence . Our holdingis also consistent with United States v. Leon-R eye s , 1 77 F .3 d 8 16 , 8 24 (9 th Cir. 1999) (testimony

reg ardingleg itimate source of business at trial for money laundering a

nd drugtraff ickingmight havebenef

itted the defense to drugtraff ickingbut would only

have had a signific ant ef

fec t on the money

laundering a

nd was therefore only

“in re spect to” themoney laundering) . In Leyon-Re yes , the per

jury was only material to one of the c harg es in a trial of multipl e, discrete cha

rg es. In the instant case , the statement wa s material to the underlying p ro c e e di n gwh i c hw a s s o l e l y d e t e r m i n i n gG arc i a ’ s gu i l to f

dr u gc o n s p i ra c y. 9 F u r th e r m o r e , th e tr ia l p r o c e e d e d in G a r c ia ’s ab s e n c e , a n d th e g o v e rn m e n t w a s ab le to u s e h e rf

lig h t a s f u r th e re v id e n c e o f

g u ilt. D e s p ite th e d if

f ic u lty o f d is c e rn in g th e p e r

ju ry ’s im p a c t o n G a r c ia ’s tr ia l, s u c h a n a n a ly s is b a s ic a lly g o e s to w h e th e ro rn o t th e s ta te m e n ts w e r e m a te r ia l to th e d ru g c o n s p ir a c y tr ia l a n d is th u s u n n e c e s s a ry b e c a u s e B e n ite z h a s p le d g u ilty to p e r ju ry . I n s o d o in g , B e n ite z h a s le g a lly a c k n o w le d g e d th a t h e rf a ls e s ta te m e n ts i nfl uenced the di stri ctcourton som e m att erbefore the court . T he on l y m att er be f or e the c our tdur i ng G a r c i a ’ s tr i a l w a s w he the rG a r c i a w a s gui l ty of drug conspi ra cy . T here fore , because w e a re bo un d b y B eni t ez ’ s c on ce ss i on of her st at em ent s’ m at er i al ef

fe cton the drug conspi ra cy tri al , w e m ustho l d thather perj ury w as “ i n res pectt o” the drug conspi ra cy . T o h ol d o therw i se and say thather s ta te m e n ts d id n o t h a v e a m a te r ia l a f f e c t o n th e d ru g c o n s p ir a c y tr ia l w o u ld b e to h o ld th a t th e s ta te m e n ts w e r e n o t p e r ju r io u s a t a ll. 210

W e th erefo re v acat e B en i t ez’ s sen t en ce an d rem an d fo r re-sen t en ci n g . In so d o in g , w e n o te th a t w e m e r e ly h o ld th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t d id n o t p r o p e r ly c a lc u la te B e ni t e z ’ s s e nt e nc e unde rthe G ui de l i ne s . T he di s tr i c tc our ti s f r e e t o gi ve a ny reaso n ab l e sen t en ce o n rem an d as l o n g as i tco n si d ers th e G u i d el i n es’ re com m endat i on and t he ot her f ac t ors s etforth i n 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 55 3(a) . V AC AT E D A ND RE MAND E D. H U L L , C i r c ui tJ udge , s pe c i a l l y c onc urr i ng: I c o n cu r o n ly in th e ju d g m en t rev er sin g th e d istrict co u rt, v ac atin g B en it ez ’s s e n te n c e , a n d r e m a n d in g f o rr e s e n te n c in g . M y r e a s o n s a r e a s f o llo w s . B e ni t e z , the pe r

j ury de f e nda nthe r e , i s the s i s t e rof G a r c i a , w ho w a s tr i e d a nd c o n v ic te d f

o rh e rr o le in a d ru g c o n s p ir a c y . B e n ite z te s tif ie d f o rth e d e f

e n s e in G ar ci a’ s drug-conspi ra cy tri al abou ti ss ues havi ng a di re ctbear i ng on the charged drug -c on spi ra cy offe nse. G ar ci a w as ac cuse d o f havi ng tra vel ed t o M ob i l e, A lab am a, w ith h erh u sb an d , Jo se N iev es , t o p ick u p a lo ad o f c o ca in e. G ar cia’s kn ow l edge of and p art i ci pat i on i n the drug conspi ra cy w er e a ti ss ue i n the cr i m i nal tri al . B en i t ez’ s t est i m o n y u n d erm i n ed th e g o v ern m en t ’ s th eo ry th atcert ai n trav el s, c o n ta c ts , a n d m o n e y d e p o s its b y G a r c ia a n d h e rf a m ily w e r e s u s p ic io u s . F o re x a m p le , B e n ite z id e n tif ie d c e r ta in n a m e s a n d a d d r e s s e s th a t e m e r g e d in the e vi de nc e , a nd he rt e s t i m ony s ugge s t e d i nnoc e nte xpl a na t i ons – i nc l udi ngGiraldo a pparently was identified a s havingmade a money drop around that time. 1 11 or di na ry c ont a c ta nd vi s i t s w i th f a m i l y m e m be r s – f

orm uc h of

the tr a ve l a nd cont ac tthatthe go vernm entvi ew ed as suspi ci ou s. B eni t ez al so deni ed kn ow i ng an i nd i ct ed co-conspi ra t or and severa l al l eged drug cont ac t s i n N ew Y ork and deni ed k n o w i n g h o w h er n i ece, M ari a G i ral d o , cam e t o p o ssess $ 5 1 , 0 0 0 i n cash i n A u g u st 2 0 0 1 . I n a d d itio n , B e n ite z id e n tif ie d th e b la c k I s u z u M o n te r o in w h ic h G a r c ia 1 w as arre st ed as G ar ci a a nd N i eves ’ s c ar , bu tt es t i fi ed thatN i eves drov e the Is uzu al l the t i m e. B eni t ez ’ s t es t i m on y r el at ed t o h ersi st er ’ s r el at i on shi p t o p eopl e, p la c e s , a n d e v e n ts a s s o c ia te d w ith th e c o c a in e c o n s p ir a c y a n d th u s w a s h ig h ly r e l e va ntt o he rs i s t e r ’ s know l e dge of a nd i nvol ve m e nti n the c ha r ge d c oc a i ne co n sp i racy. D ur i ng the s a m e c r i m i na l tr i a l , B e ni t e z a l s o t e s t i f i e d abouthe rs i s t e r ’ s f

l i ght fr om tri al , and i n so d oi ng , perj ured hers el f by denyi ng her ow n i nv ol vem enti n h er sister ’s flig h t. B en it ez to ldth e ju ry th at sh e h ad n o p ar t i n h ersister ’s di s appe a r a nc e , w he n i n f a c ts he w a s c om pl i c i ti n i t . H a d the j ur or s know n of B e n ite z ’s c o m p lic ity in h e rs is te r ’s ab s c o n d in g d u r in g th e tr ia l, th e y m ig h t w e ll ha ve c onc l ude d tha tB e ni t e z w oul d do othe runl a w f ul thi ngs – i nc l udi ng t e s t i f y i ng un truthful l y – t o p rot ec ther s i st er , and B eni t ez ’ s c re di bi l i ty w ou l d h ave been un derm i ned, i f notevi sc er at ed. B ec ause B eni t ez ’ s per j ury i n h ersi st er ’ s tri alBe causeBenitez was a material witness in the drug -conspiracy trial and her per

jury had 2 the potential to derail just ice in that trial, I need not reach the g overnment’s argument that B e nit e z’s perj ur

y wa s also“ in re sp e c t to ”thedr ug -c on sp ira c y

c ha rg ebe c a us eit ena ble d G arc ia to avoid capture for

those cha rg es. Although the trial ag ainst Garc ia proc eede d in her a bsence , B e nit e z’s perj ur

y po ssibly allo we d G arc ia

to e sc a pejus tic elong er t

ha n s heoth e rwisewo uld have, a nd could haveallowed her to esca pe indef initely . Thus, the g overnment argues, B enitez’s perjury risked a misca

rriag e of justice in allowing Ga rcia to elude justice “ in respec t to” the drug -conspiracy

charg e. 12 pr ot e c t e d he row n c r e di bi l i ty i n t e s t i f y i ng aboutm a tt e r s r e l e va ntt o the drugc ons pi r a c y c ha r ge a ga i ns the rs i s t e r , the pe r j ury e a s i l y c oul d ha ve a f f e c t e d the ou t com e of the tri al . B eni t ez pars es her t es t i m on y t oo fi nel y i n argui ng thather perj ury abo uther s i st er ’ s f l ee i ng her drug-conspi ra cy tri al i s abo uton l y acol l at er al m att erof fl i gh tand n otre l at ed t o h erdrug -c on spi ra cy tri al . M y vi ew i s that B e ni t e z ’ s di s t a nc i ng he r s e l f f r om he rs i s t e r ’ s f

l i ght , a nd e s pe c i a l l y nott e l l i ng the j ury s he ha d he l pe d he rs i s t e rf l e e dur i ng the a c tua l tr i a l i t s e l f , w a s c ruc i a l t o gi ve h e ro th e rte s tim o n y c r e d ib ility . T h u s , in m y v ie w , a p la in r e a d in g o f U .S .S .G . § 2J 1. 3( c ) c om pe l s the c onc l us i on tha tB e ni t e z ’ s pe r j ury w a s “ i n r e s pe c tt o” the drug- c ons pi r a c y c ha r ge a ga i ns tG a r c i a . S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. B ova , 350 F . 3d 224, 230 ( 1s tC i r . 2003) ( “ T he [ § 2J 1. 3] c r os s r e f e r e nc e i s ba s e d on the pot e nt i a l of the perj ury t o d er ai l or m i sc arry a j ud i ci al or si m i l arproceedi ng di re ct ed t o ano ther cri m e. ”); U n i t ed S t at es v . S u l ei m an , 2 0 8 F . 3 d 3 2 , 3 9 (2 d C i r. 2 0 0 0 ) (“ T h e p u rp o se of the ‘ i n res pectt o’ enhancem enti s t o tre atm ore s ever el y per j uri es thatri sk an i ncom pl et e or a n i nacc urat e i nv es t i gat i on or tri al of a c ri m i nal offe nse. ”) . 213

N ordo the c a s e s r e l i e d upon by B e ni t e z s ugge s tothe rw i s e , a s the y i nvol ve p e r ju ry in s e p a r a te p r o c e e d in g s a n d n o t in th e a c tu a l tr ia l o f th e o th e rc r im e its e lf

. T he on l y c as e c i t ed by B eni t ez thati nv ol ves per j ury i n a cr i m i nal tri al i s U ni t ed S ta te s v . L e o n - R e y e s , 1 7 7 F .3 d 8 1 6 ( 9 th C ir . 1 9 9 9 ) . L e o n - R e y e s is e a s ily di st i ng ui shed fr om B eni t ez ’ s c as e. D ef endantL eon-R ey es , an ac coun t ant , t es t i fi ed p e r ju r io u s ly in a c r im in a l tr ia l in w h ic h H e r ib e r to G a r c ia S r . a n d H e r ib e r to G a r c ia J r . w e r e c h a r g e d w ith d ru g tr a f f ic k in g , m o n e y la u n d e r in g , a n d m o n e y s tru c tu r in g . I d . a t 8 1 8 - 1 9 . L e o n - R e y e s te s tif ie d ab o u t th e f

in a n c ia l a f

f a ir s o f G a r c ia S r . in rel at i o n t o th e m o n ey-l au n d eri n g ch arg es an d d i d n o tt est i fy ab o u tth e G arci as’ drug a c t i vi t i e s . I d. a t824. A s a r e s ul t , the N i nth C i r c ui tc onc l ude d tha tL e onR e y e s ’ s pe r

j ury w a s “ i n r e s pe c tt o” the m one y - l a unde r i ng c ha r ge s butnotthe drugtr a f f i c ki ng c ha r ge s . I d. H e r e , B e ni t e z ’ s t e s t i m ony w a s c l e a r l y m a t e r i a l t o the drug -c on spi ra cy char ge agai nstG ar ci a. T hu s, L eon-R ey es do es no tsupp ort B e ni t e z ’ s pos i t i on. F orthe s e r e a s ons , I c onc l ude tha tB e ni t e z ’ s pe r j ury i n he rs i s t e r ’ s drugc o n s p ir a c y tr ia l w a s “in r e s p e c t to ” th a t d ru g - c o n s p ir a c y o f f e n s e a n d th u s c o n c u rin th e ju d g m e n t v a c a tin g B e n ite z ’s s e n te n c e a n d r e m a n d in g f o rr e s e n te n c in g .