Opinion ID: 771935
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Enhancement for Obstruction of Justice

Text: 27 Under U.S.S.G. 3C1.1, a district court may impose a two-level enhancement on a defendant who willfully obstructed or impeded, or attempted to obstruct or impede, the administration of justice during the course of the investigation, prosecution, or sentencing of the instant offense of conviction. Under Application Note 4, one example of conduct to which the enhancement applies is perjury. U.S.S.G. 3C1.1, cmt. n.4. In order to find perjury, the district court must find that the defendant's testimony was (1) false, (2) material and (3) willful. United States v. Shannon, 137 F.3d 1112, 1119 (9th Cir. 1998). A district court's determination that a defendant obstructed justice under this Guideline is a factual determination that we review for clear error. Id. 28 Here, the district court found that Defendant willfully perjured himself and that the perjury was material. Specifically, the court found that Defendant committed perjury when he testified that he did not participate in planning the car jacking; that Johnson assaulted him with a gun and raped him; that Johnson was the one who beat Klein; and that he never saw the Police Chief in the Carlin truck stop, but fled because he wanted to escape from Johnson. The court also addressed the requirements of willfulness and materiality. 29 The district court's findings are not clearly erroneous. Defendant's primary argument is that his lies were not material. But, to take one example, Defendant's testimony that Johnson was the one who beat Klein with a pipe clearly was material. Defendant's main defense was that he was coerced by Johnson. Johnson's and Klein's testimony, which the trial court credited, established that Defendant beat Klein while Johnson was away using the restroom. That testimony contradicted Defendant's assertion that he was acting under Johnson's orders; and Defendant's false testimony that Johnson was the one who beat Klein was, therefore, material to his defense of coercion. 30 The district court made appropriate, detailed findings in support of this sentencing enhancement. Those findings are supported by evidence and are not clearly erroneous. 31