Opinion ID: 2767182
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Bajana

Text: Bajana argues on appeal that the district court erred in: (1) applying an enhancement for obstruction of justice in calculating his Guidelines range; and (2) its calculation of drug quantity attributable to him. He argues that his sentence was therefore procedurally unreasonable. Procedural error in sentencing occurs where a district court “fails to calculate the Guidelines range . . . , makes a mistake in its Guidelines calculation, or treats the Guidelines as mandatory. It also errs procedurally if it does not consider the § 3553(a) factors, or rests its sentence on a clearly erroneous finding of fact.” United States v. Cavera, 550 F.3d 180, 190 (2d Cir. 2008) (en banc) (internal citations omitted). We therefore review the factual findings based on which the district court has determined the Guidelines range for clear error, which occurs when “although there is evidence to support [the court’s finding], the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564, 573 (1985) (internal quotation marks omitted). A district court must find disputed facts relevant to sentencing by a preponderance of the evidence. United States v. Garcia, 413 F.3d 201, 220 n.15 (2d Cir. 2005). Bajana argues that the testimony that formed the basis for the district court’s imposition of the obstruction enhancement was not material to the proceeding in which it was elicited, as it must be in order for an obstruction of justice enhancement to apply, see United States v. Zagari, 111 F.3d 307, 329 (2d Cir. 1997), but was instead material, at 5 most, only to a separate proceeding (as Bajana would have us characterize his sentencing proceeding). We need not decide whether the enhancement was appropriate here, because any error committed by the district court was harmless. In imposing sentence, the district judge explicitly stated that he would have imposed the same sentence even if he had not found that an enhancement was warranted, because his sentence was based on his assessment of the statutory sentencing factors, including Bajana’s culpability and role in the offense as a whole, his relative culpability as compared to other defendants, and “a sense of who Mr. Bajana is,” based on the record before the court. We find no clear error in the district court’s calculation of the quantity of MDMA attributable to Bajana for sentencing purposes. The district court based its calculations on testimony from a cooperator, which it was entitled to credit; on evidence from wire intercepts; on the drug quantity data presented by both parties that it judged most reliable; and on its finding as to what criminal activity Bajana jointly undertook as part of his agreement to participate in the conspiracy. On the record before us, we see no basis for disturbing the district court’s findings. Because we conclude that the district court did not clearly err in calculating Bajana’s Guidelines range and that the sentence imposed was not procedurally unreasonable, we AFFIRM the judgment of conviction as to Bajana. 6 For the foregoing reasons, Johnson’s appeal is DISMISSED insofar as it challenges his sentence of imprisonment and supervised release, and the judgments of the District Court are otherwise AFFIRMED. FOR THE COURT: CATHERINE O’HAGAN WOLFE, Clerk of Court 7