Opinion ID: 2995692
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: g., United States v. Brimley, 148 F.3d

Text: 819, 823 (7th Cir. 1998); see also United States v. Dunnigan, 507 U.S. 87, 94 (1993). Whether the district court made the appropriate findings is reviewed de novo, and the district court’s factual findings supporting the enhancement are reviewed for clear error. United States v. Gage, 183 F.3d 711, 715 (7th Cir. 1999). The district court made the requisite findings, determining Victor Alicea did provide his consent [to search], it was voluntary, and the Court believes that it was willfully false and certainly material to the issue at hand. Nevertheless, Victor argues that there was no indication that Victor Alicea willfully sought to mislead the court, therefore the enhancement should not have been imposed. However, a district court’s determination that a defendant’s testimony was false is adequate to support the enhancement. United States v. Turner, 203 F.3d 1010, 1020 (7th Cir. 2000); Brimley, 148 F.3d at 822-24. The application of the sentencing enhancement based on Victor Alicea’s false testimony was not clear error. E. Violation of the Sixth Amendment Right to Confrontation A district court’s limitation of cross- examination is reviewed for an abuse of discretion, unless it directly implicates the core values of the Sixth Amendment right of confrontation which we review de novo. E.g., United States v. Neeley, 980