Opinion ID: 791196
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Obstructing Justice

Text: 6 In his initial brief on appeal, Galaviz-Luna challenges as clear error the application of a two-level sentence enhancement for obstruction of justice. Even after Booker, `[w]e review the [interpretation and] application of the sentencing guidelines de novo and review the district court's factual findings for clear error.' United States v. Porter, 409 F.3d 910, 917-18 (8th Cir.2005) (alterations in original) (quoting United States v. Mathijssen, 406 F.3d 496, 498 (8th Cir.2005)). Whether Galaviz-Luna committed perjury and, in so doing, obstructed justice is a factual finding, and we reverse a district court's imposition of a sentence enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1 only upon a showing of clear error. See United States v. Red Elk, 368 F.3d 1047, 1052 (8th Cir.2004). 7 A witness commits perjury if he `gives false testimony concerning a material matter with the [willful] intent to provide false testimony, rather than as a result of confusion, mistake, or faulty memory.' United States v. Thomas, 93 F.3d 479, 489 (8th Cir.1996) (quoting United States v. Dunnigan, 507 U.S. 87, 94, 113 S.Ct. 1111, 122 L.Ed.2d 445 (1993)). Before imposing a sentence enhancement for obstruction of justice, the district court must review the evidence and make an independent finding of perjury by a preponderance of the evidence, one not based solely on the jury's disbelief of the defendant's testimony. Red Elk, 368 F.3d at 1052. Given the conflict between Galaviz-Luna's trial testimony and the other evidence at trial, the district court found Galaviz-Luna perjured himself, and said: 8 The overwhelming trial evidence from a wide variety and diversity of people, is that [Galaviz-Luna] was a drug dealer, and actively a drug dealer, and took significant steps to deal drugs. And it is true that he testified contrary to his proffer when it became obvious that if he stuck by his proffer, he would have implicated himself in distributable quantities. And I, therefore, overrule the objection and find that the obstruction [of] justice enhancement is appropriately imposed here. 9 The district court then asked, Do the parties require any further findings? Both the government and Galaviz-Luna's counsel replied, No. We will not at this late date ask the district court to make further perjury findings. 10 The district court, in effect, made a specific finding of perjury, and we see no evidence this finding was clearly erroneous. Therefore, we hold the district court did not clearly err in assessing a two-level sentence enhancement for obstruction of justice under U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1.