Opinion ID: 655893
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: upward adjustment for obstruction

Text: 47 Ornelas-Martinez challenges his two-point upward adjustment for obstruction of justice. Since Ornelas-Martinez did not challenge the adjustment at sentencing, (S.T. at 181) the court's findings of fact are reviewed for plain error. United States v. Bosch, 951 F.2d 1546, 1548 (9th Cir.1991). 48 Section 3C1.1 provides for a two-point upward adjustment if the defendant wilfully obstructed or impeded, or attempted to obstruct or impede, the administration of justice during the investigation, prosecution, or sentencing of the instant offense[.] Section 3C1.1 applies to attempted obstruction as well as actual obstruction. United States v. Baker, 894 F.2d 1083, 1084 (9th Cir.1990). See also United States v. Morales, 977 F.2d 1330, 1331 (9th Cir.1992), cert. denied, 113 S.Ct. 1399 (1993). 49 Ornelas-Martinez does not dispute that at the time of his arrest he gave a false name and that his use of a false name made it difficult for pre-trial services to obtain his prior criminal record. In this situation, the use of an alias qualifies for an upward adjustment under § 3C1.1. Application note 4(a). So too, a defendant may warrant an upward departure if he provides materially false information to a judge or magistrate or if he commits perjury. Application Note 3(b)-(f). Ornelas-Martinez does not deny that he committed perjury when he signed a sworn financial affidavit using the same alias. (S.T. at 179-80). The upward adjustment is affirmed.