Opinion ID: 535320
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Application of Guideline Sec. 3C1.1

Text: 9 Christman argues that the court erred in enhancing his sentence for obstructing justice. Guideline Sec. 3C1.1 provides: 10 If the defendant willfully impeded or obstructed, or attempted to impede or obstruct the administration of justice during the investigation or prosecution of the instant offense, increase the offense level by 2 levels. 11 This enhancement is appropriate for a defendant who engages in conduct calculated to mislead or deceive authorities or those involved in a judicial proceeding ... in respect to the instant offense. Commentary to Guideline Sec. 3C1.1. Furnishing material falsehoods to a probation officer in the course of a presentence investigation is conduct which may provide a basis for enhancement. Guideline Sec. 3C1.1, Application Note 1(e). In applying this provision, suspect testimony and statements should be evaluated in a light most favorable to the defendant. Id. at Application Note 2. 12 The court's finding that Christman obstructed justice is a factual conclusion which we review for clear error. 18 U.S.C.A. Sec. 3742(e) (West Supp.1989); see United States v. Williams, 879 F.2d 454, 457 (8th Cir.1989); United States v. Franco-Torres, 869 F.2d 797, 800 (5th Cir.1989). 13 The court's conclusion that Christman obstructed justice was not clearly erroneous. As noted in the presentence report, he twice told the probation office that a 1983 drug charge had been dismissed. Later, he said that he had been convicted of a misdemeanor. Later investigation revealed that he had been convicted of a felony drug charge. The transcript of the plea hearing in California state court on that charge indicates that Christman was informed and understood that he was pleading guilty to a felony. In addition, Judge Redden heard testimony at the sentencing hearing from Christman and his attorney in the California case, allowing him to make the appropriate credibility determinations. 14 Christman argues that the court erred in its finding that he obstructed justice when it stated that he was aware or should have been aware that his previous conviction was a felony. He argues that such a finding is inconsistent with the requirement that the obstruction be willful. This argument has no merit. 15 A review of the record indicates that Christman's obstruction of justice was intentional and that the court found his conduct to be willful. Based on the testimony at the sentencing hearing and the transcripts from the 1983 plea hearing, the evidence was overwhelming that he knew about the previous drug conviction and intentionally lied to the probation officers. The sentence enhancement under Sec. 3C1.1 was not clearly erroneous. 16 AFFIRMED.