Opinion ID: 1304600
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Savoca's Sentence is Procedurally Reasonable

Text: Procedural error by the District Court includes failing to calculate (or improperly calculating) the Guidelines range, treating the Guidelines as mandatory, failing to consider the § 3553(a) factors, selecting a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the chosen sentenceincluding an explanation for any deviation from the Guidelines range. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007).
In reviewing an enhancement for obstruction of justice, this Court upholds the District Court's findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous. 18 U.S.C. § 3742(e) (2006); United States v. Cassiliano, 137 F.3d 742, 745 (2d Cir.1998). A legal interpretation that the facts constituted an obstruction of justice is reviewed de novo. Id. Under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 3C1.1, an enhancement for obstruction of justice may be imposed if the obstructive conduct occurred during the investigation, prosecution, or sentencing of the instant offense of conviction. Here, Savoca states that the counts to which he pled guilty, attempted robbery and weapon possession, did not involve a conspiracy, nor did they require at least two actors. Therefore, according to Savoca, his testimony at Lawrence Savoca's trial, did not constitute the prosecution of his own instant offense of conviction, and thus, cannot qualify for an obstruction of justice enhancement. However, Savoca's argument fails to acknowledge the amendment to the Sentencing Guidelines and Commentary effective November 1998, which clarified that an obstruction of justice enhancement applies to conduct that occurred with respect to an otherwise closely related case, such as that of a co-defendant. U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 3C1.1 cmt. n. 1 (1998). The Commentary in the Guidelines Manual is considered authoritative unless it violates the Constitution or a federal statute, or is inconsistent with, or a plainly erroneous reading of, that guideline. Stinson v. United States, 508 U.S. 36, 38, 113 S.Ct. 1913, 123 L.Ed.2d 598 (1993). An obstruction of justice enhancement specifically applies to committing... perjury. U.S. Sentencing Guidelines § 3C1.1 cmt. n. 4(b). Here, it is undisputed that Savoca and his brother were co-defendants who were indicted together. Cf. United States v. Brown, 321 F.3d 347, 353 (2d Cir.2003) (declining to apply a two-level enhancement for obstruction of justice where the District Court made no specific findings that Brown was a defendant or potential defendant in another case or that it was an otherwise closely related case). The offenses to which Savoca pled guilty and for which his brother was convicted were joint in nature, and were charged accordingly. [1] The required close relationship between Salvatore Savoca's and Lawrence Savoca's cases is necessarily satisfied. As to Savoca's obstructive conduct, an obstruction enhancement based on perjury must be supported by a finding that the defendant's statements unambiguously demonstrate an intent to obstruct. United States v. Kelly, 147 F.3d 172, 178 (2d Cir.1998). The district court must determine by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant provided false testimony concerning a material matter with the willful intent to provide false testimony. Id. (quoting United States v. Walsh, 119 F.3d 115, 121 (2d Cir.1997).) While testifying at his co-defendant's trial, Savoca lied as to the identity of the other actor in the crime, stating that it was another individual, and not Lawrence Savoca, who assisted him. At Savoca's sentencing, the District Court determined that such testimony constituted perjury. The District Court explained that, had Savoca been found credible by the jury, then Lawrence Savoca could not have been convicted because he would not have been identified as participating in the crime. This finding of fact by the District Court was not clearly erroneous. Therefore, the subsequent application of an obstruction of justice enhancement was appropriate given the co-defendant relationship between Salvatore Savoca and Lawrence Savoca, the joint nature of the offenses, and Savoca's commission of perjury during his testimony at Lawrence Savoca's trial. Further, since Savoca had not yet been sentenced when he committed the perjury in question, it occurred during the course of the investigation, prosecution, or sentencing of the instant offense of conviction, as defined in U.S. Sentencing Guidelines § 3C1.1.
Savoca also contends that he should not have been denied a Sentencing Guidelines reduction for acceptance of responsibility pursuant to U.S. Sentencing Guidelines § 3E1.1. This contention is primarily based on his argument that the obstruction of justice enhancement was not warranted. Under § 3E1.1, sentencing judges may reduce a defendant's offense level if he clearly demonstrates acceptance of responsibility for his offense. Merely pleading guilty to an offense does not ensure the application of the reduction. United States v. Defeo, 36 F.3d 272, 277 (2d Cir.1994). Except in extraordinary cases, the application of an enhancement for obstruction of justice ordinarily indicates that the defendant has not accepted responsibility to warrant a reduction in his guidelines calculation. U.S. Sentencing Guidelines § 3E1.1 cmt. n. 4. Because the sentencing judge is in a unique position to evaluate a defendant's acceptance of responsibility, his determination is given great deference on review. Id. at cmt. n. 5. Here, the District Court was acting within its discretion in denying the reduction based upon its determination that Savoca committed perjury prior to being sentenced. To determine that Savoca accepted responsibility, but perjured himself as to significant elements of the offense is incongruous. This argument is without merit.