Opinion ID: 1352691
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Guidelines Section 3C1.1 and blatant perjury

Text: Citing United States v. Williams, 79 F.3d 334 (2d Cir.1996), and United States v. Catano-Alzate, 62 F.3d 41 (2d Cir.1995), Salim contends that this court will not uphold an obstruction enhancement where a district court made no findings that the allegedly false statement constituted blatant perjury. Appellant's Br. at 64. Neither case supports this argument. Williams and Catano-Alzate both interpret United States v. Dunnigan, 507 U.S. 87, 95, 113 S.Ct. 1111, 122 L.Ed.2d 445 (1993), in which the Supreme Court advised that, when imposing the obstruction enhancement, it is preferable for a district court to address each element of the alleged perjury in a separate and clear finding. The sentences in Williams, 79 F.3d at 337, and Catano-Alzate, 62 F.3d at 42, were vacated because the district court failed to make specific findings as to the elements of the enhancement. Here, by contrast, the district court issued a written order citing Dunnigan and explicitly finding that Salim's statements were false, and made intentionally. Obstruction Order at 5-6. It also found that the statements, [i]f believed[,] ... would have impacted the Court's analysis of whether Defendant intended to influence or affect Judge Sand's decision ... the very basis for the Court's finding as to the terrorism enhancement. Id. This language, which largely tracks the definition of material used in § 3C1.1 n. 6, plainly constitutes a separate and clear finding of the materiality element under Dunnigan. See 507 U.S. at 95, 113 S.Ct. 1111. Finally, having found all of the elements of perjury, the district court went on to find that the perjury was committed in an attempt to obstruct justice. Obstruction Order at 7. The district court plainly found all of the elements of § 3C1.1 by a preponderance of the evidence, and nothing in Dunnigan, Williams, or Catano-Alzate requires more.