Opinion ID: 667952
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Propriety of Enhancements Imposed at the Initial Sentencing

Text: 13 We review for clear error the district court's decisions covering enhancements at the resentencing for obstruction of justice and possession of a gun; and that the conspiracy involved ten pounds of methamphetamine. See United States v. Chapnick, 963 F.2d 224, 226 (9th Cir.1992) (factual findings underlying sentencing are reviewed for clear error).
14 Green argues that the district court erred by its initial ruling that the firearm locked in his briefcase was present in furtherance of the crime. The enhancement is proper unless it is clearly improbable that the gun was connected to the offense. United States v. Restrepo, 884 F.2d 1294, 1296 (9th Cir.1989). 15 Green claims that his professional calling as a bounty hunter seeking fugitives who jump bail demonstrates the improbability that the gun was connected to the drug conspiracy. He argues that as a bounty hunter he is permitted and required to carry a firearm because his career is rife with hazard and that it is clearly improbable that he had the gun for any purpose other than bounty hunting. In addition, Green contends that, in any event, the mere presence of the gun is not dispositive because the weapon must be possessed during the criminal conduct. United States v. Stewart, 926 F.2d 899, 901 (9th Cir.1991) (emphasis added). Here, the drug sale took place at the Days Inn Motel while Green was at the La Quinta Motel. In fact, Green was never caught anywhere near the drugs. 16 Still, we disagree with Green that the facts demonstrate that his possession of the gun was not in the course of the criminal activity. He testified under oath that he has no license or permit to carry a gun, and no California statute permits a bounty hunter to carry a concealed weapon. And we have long recognized the nexus between deadly weapons and narcotics trafficking. See United States v. Guy, 903 F.2d 1240 (9th Cir.1990) (drug traffickers often carry firearms). Furthermore, this Court ruled in the first appeal that the gun was relevant evidence to demonstrate participation in the criminal activity. United States v. Green, 91-50542 at 5 (9th Cir. Aug. 18, 1992) (memorandum disposition). Therefore, it was not clearly improbable that the gun was connected to the drug conspiracy.
17 We review for clear error a district court's finding that a defendant obstructed justice. United States v. Torres-Rodriguez, 930 F.2d 1375, 1389 (9th Cir.1991). Section 3C1.1 of the Sentencing Guidelines permits upward adjustments by the sentencing court if a defendant willfully impedes or obstructs, or attempts to impede or obstruct, the administration of justice. Id. Untruthful testimony qualifies as such an obstruction or impediment. Id. 18 Green argues first that the case against him was largely a question of his credibility versus the credibility of the government's witnesses. He asserts that he was severely prejudiced by the government when it failed to reveal the fact that Officer Hines, a witness against Green, was contemporaneously under indictment for selling ephedrine. He argues that this evidence was vital for impeaching the witness. 19 Green's argument is not persuasive, however. He offered non-believable testimony which, regardless of the evidence offered by Officer Hines, destroyed his credibility. The evidence showed that Green rented the rooms in the La Quinta Motel, and that he confirmed to Officer Davidson that Williams had left the motel with the money. Green was unlawfully carrying a concealed weapon, the hallmark of drug trafficking. This evidence demonstrates that it was not clearly erroneous for the trial court to conclude that Green testified untruthfully. 1 20 Green also contends that the district court failed to make appropriate findings of perjury as required by United States v. Dunnigan, 113 S.Ct. 1111, 1117 (1993). In Dunnigan, the Court ruled that a district court's determination that enhancement is required is sufficient ... if the court makes a finding of an obstruction or impediment of justice that encompasses all of the factual predicates for a finding of perjury. Id. A witness testifying under oath perjures herself when she 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. Id. at 1116. 21 Here, the district court expressly found that the obstruction issue ... [arose] when your client [Green] ... lied under oath that he knew nothing about the operation and that he had any part in it. Clearly, the trial judge found that Green willfully gave false testimony. Also, there is no doubt that Green's awareness and involvement in the conspiracy is a material matter. Therefore, implicit in the trial court's perjury finding is the conclusion that Green willfully gave, and intended to give, false testimony about a material matter. This satisfies the perjury test of Dunnigan and its requirement that the trial judge make a finding to this effect.
22 To be sentenced for relevant conduct of a coconspirator, a defendant must have reasonably foreseen the conduct. U.S.S.G. Appendix C, amendment 439, Application Note 1 (Sec. 1B1.3, Application Note 1 in the Amended version of Nov. 1, 1991). Moreover, regarding narcotics, the Sentencing Guidelines provide that the object of the conspiracy, not the actual amount purchased or sold, shall determine the quantity for sentencing. U.S.S.G. Sec. 2D1.4. To this end, we consistently have held that the amount negotiated for determines the quantity of drugs for sentencing. United States v. Frazier, 985 F.2d 1001 (9th Cir.1993). Therefore, to charge Green with the entire ten pounds, we must first determine the drug quantity that was the object of the conspiracy, and then decide whether that quantity was foreseeable by Green. 23 To determine how much methamphetamine the conspiracy contemplated, it is helpful to recall that Williams informed Officer Davidson on three separate occasions that he intended to purchase 10 pounds of the drugs. Moreover, the coconspirators brought roughly $64,000 with them to the La Quinta Motel, more than enough to purchase 10 pounds. This evidence indicates that the conspiracy contemplated buying 10 pounds. 24 That this amount was foreseeable to Green can also be deduced from the facts. At the very least the conspiracy spanned the period from the initial contact made by Williams to the final contact with Officer Davidson. There is no doubt that Green rented the rooms at the La Quinta Motel from which the conspirators made their final contacts with Officer Davidson. Also, there is no dispute that room number 137 contained the box in which Green's coconspirators were storing an additional $34,000 for the second purchase. This evidence suggests that Green could reasonably foresee the contemplated 10 pound purchase.