Opinion ID: 676543
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Enhancement Under Sec. 3C1.1

Text: 28 Osuorji was sentenced under the United States Sentencing Guidelines to 188 months' imprisonment. In determining the total base offense level, the district court imposed a two-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. Sec. 3C1.1 for obstruction of justice based upon Osuorji's perjury at the suppression hearing. Osuorji contends that the sentence should be vacated because the district court failed to identify the specific portions of his testimony which it considered to be untruthful, and because the enhancement improperly punishes him for simply denying his guilt and for exercising his constitutional right to tell his own version of the events. We once again must disagree. 29 While a simple denial of guilt standing alone may not be a basis for enhancement under Sec. 3C1.1, see U.S.S.G. Sec. 3C1.1, comment. (n. 1); United States v. Contreras, 937 F.2d 1191, 1194 (7th Cir.1991), Osuorji did more than simply deny his guilt. He took the stand during the suppression hearing and told the court under oath that the suitcase was not his and that it belonged to an older white man who had asked him to check it for him in Los Angeles and that the agents never asked for his consent to search the luggage. The district court found Osuorji's version of the events to lack credibility. [The] court based its finding on the testimony of the agents which it believed, contrasted with appellant's testimony which it did not believe. Under Easley, that is enough for a specific, independent finding not to be clearly erroneous. United States v. Soto-Lopez, 995 F.2d 694, 699-700 (7th Cir.1993) (citing United States v. Easley, 977 F.2d 283, 286-87 (7th Cir.1992)). See also United States v. Fiala, 929 F.2d 285, 289 (7th Cir.1991) (the denial of guilt exception to Sec. 3C1.1 does not apply to exculpatory statements made under oath). That the potential application of Sec. 3C1.1 might have a chilling effect on a defendant's decision to testify untruthfully is not disputed. It does not, however, impinge upon any of the defendant's constitutional rights, for [t]here is no right to commit perjury. Contreras, 937 F.2d at 1194 (quoting United States v. Grayson, 438 U.S. 41, 54-55, 98 S.Ct. 2610, 2617-18, 57 L.Ed.2d 582 (1978)).