Opinion ID: 2977636
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Addition of Two Points for Obstruction

Text: For a district court to impose an obstruction-of-justice enhancement to a defendant’s sentence under § 3C1.1 of the Sentencing Guidelines, the court “must 1) identify those particular portions of defendant’s testimony that it considers to be perjurious; and 2) either make a specific finding for each element of perjury or, at least, make a finding that encompasses all of the factual predicates for a finding of perjury.” United States v. Lawrence, 308 F.3d 623, 632 (6th Cir. 2002). The elements of perjury are “false testimony concerning a material matter with the willful intent to provide false testimony, rather than No. 07-4363 United States v. Boring Page 5 as a result of confusion, mistake, or faulty memory.” United States v. Dunnigan, 507 U.S. 87, 94 (1993). A matter is considered material if it “would tend to influence or affect the issue under determination” if believed. U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1 cmt n.6. At the sentencing hearing, the court identified the testimony that it considered to be perjurious (the testimony about Boring’s conversation with his supervisor). It then made a 1 finding, albeit brief, that encompassed the factual predicates for perjury. That Boring’s version of the conversation differed so substantially from his supervisor’s version, which the judge and jury both believed, leads to the inference that the testimony’s falsity was willful. It is also clear that the subject matter was material, since it directly concerned one of the elements of the crime. When reviewing a sentence enhancement on appeal, we employ a three-pronged standard. “First, we review the factual determinations made by the district court for clear error. Second, the determination that certain conduct constitutes obstruction of justice, which is a mixed question of law and fact, is reviewed de novo. Third . . . the actual imposition of the enhancement is reviewed de novo.” United States v. Bagget, 342 F.3d 536, 540-41 (6th Cir. 2003) (citations omitted). On the first prong, the district court’s factual determinations were not clear error. The finding that Boring’s testimony was false is supported by the record and by the jury’s verdict. As the court noted at sentencing, the jury had to credit the supervisor’s testimony and reject Boring’s in order to convict. On the second prong, the court’s finding that the conduct constituted obstruction, which is reviewed de novo, is also sound. As noted, the discrepancy between Boring’s testimony and his supervisor’s 1 In the relevant portion of the sentencing hearing, the judge discusses the conflicting testimony between Boring and his supervisor, Mr. Wastler: The Court found Mr. Warstler to be very credible, straightforward. I believe the jury did in order to reach their conclusions. And what Mr. Warstler testified to was in direct contradiction to what the defendant testified. The jury would have had to disbelieve completely the defendant’s testimony to arrive at the verdicts. And I believe [the prosecutor] has a basis for making the argument for obstruction in the sense of it seemed like at every opportunity, it was either somebody else’s fault or a reason or many reasons why he couldn’t return to work, wouldn’t return to work. The Court will find obstruction of justice; add two. Sentencing Tr., Oct. 23, 2007, at 31; J.A. 214. No. 07-4363 United States v. Boring Page 6 suggests that, if Boring’s testimony was false, it was almost certainly willfully so, rather than the product of a faulty memory. And, again, it was on a material matter. Finally, the imposition of the enhancement was correct: perjury is a form of obstruction, which increases the base offense level by two points. Boring suggests that his enhancement contravenes the comments to § 3C1.1, which state that a defendant’s mere denial of guilt does not constitute obstruction (because otherwise his Fifth Amendment rights would be infringed) and that “the Court should be cognizant that inaccurate testimony or statements sometimes may result from confusion, mistake, or faulty memory” not rising to the level of obstruction. But the comment explicitly excepts “a denial of guilt under oath that constitutes perjury” from its reminder not to assess an obstruction enhancement for a denial of or refusal to admit guilt. U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1 cmt. n.2; see also United States v. Burnette, 981 F.2d 874, 879 (6th Cir. 1992) (“The right to testify at trial, however, does not include a right to commit perjury.”). The two-point enhancement for obstruction of justice is subsumed within the jury’s verdict and was properly applied.