Opinion ID: 180588
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The District Court Also Erred By Refusing to Enhance Williams's Sentence for Obstructing Justice.

Text: We also agree with the argument of the government that the district court erred by failing to enhance Williams's sentence for an obstruction of justice. A defendant is subject to enhancement of his sentence if he willfully obstruct[s] or impede[s], or attempt[s] to obstruct or impede, the administration of justice with respect to the investigation, prosecution, or sentencing of the instant offense of conviction. U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1. The enhancement is applicable if a defendant commits perjury. Id. § 3C1.1 cmt. n.4(B). Williams's testimony that he did not recognize his pursuers as federal marshals is irreconcilable with the record. The jury credited the evidence presented by the government and found, for good reason, that Williams assaulted two federal marshals. Federal marshals testified that they wore vests that clearly identified them as law enforcement officers, at least one marshal attempted to approach Williams, and the marshals activated emergency lights and sirens that an eyewitness testified made the vehicles recognizable to the public. Williams testified that he did not intend to assault the officers, but the evidence established that Williams used his vehicle as a battering ram to escape from the parking lot of the gas station and to attempt to force Warren's vehicle off a high ramp. At sentencing Williams insisted stubbornly that he was innocent of wrongdoing and the marshals were to blame for the incident. Perjury under oath on material matters, not due to confusion or mistake, justifies an enhancement for obstruction of justice. United States v. Geffrard, 87 F.3d 448, 453 (11th Cir.1996). Williams's incredible testimony, in the light of all the credible evidence to the contrary, leaves us with the definite and firm conviction that the sentencing court should have enhanced Williams's sentence. United States v. Poirier, 321 F.3d 1024, 1036 (11th Cir.2003). The inexplicable finding of the district court that Williams did not obstruct justice is clearly erroneous, and must be corrected on remand. Id.