Opinion ID: 2994796
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Willfulness of White’s Testimony

Text: White asserts on appeal that the district court clearly erred in finding that the two-level enhancement for obstruction of justice was appropriate to his case./2 Specifically, as he did before he was sentenced, White puts forth that, at the time he participated in the insurance scheme, he was consistently under the influence of heroin. He suggests that as a result of his constant heroin use, his memory of events pertaining to that period of time is quite hazy. Since his false testimony was the result of faulty memory, he claims, the district court erred in finding that he had willfully intended to provide false testimony, as is required for a finding of perjury./3 While we are sympathetic to White’s assertion that his false testimony may have resulted from memory lapses caused by the long-term effects of habitual drug use, we cannot concur that the district court committed error (let alone clear error) in finding White’s claim unpersuasive. As the government has noted, White did not take the stand in his defense and claim that his heroin use had caused him not to remember what he had done during the years in question. Were that the case, it is unlikely that an obstruction of justice enhancement would have been sought or granted. Rather, White flatly and categorically denied involvement in the scheme, in blatant contradiction to numerous witnesses’ testimonies. As stated above, at the time of his trial and testimony, White was not under the influence of drugs. Testifying soberly, he denied facts which he now claims he could not recall. Assuming arguendo that White is not now prevaricating, and that he truly could not remember the events concerning his role in the insurance scam, his testimony at trial asserting that he did not participate in the scheme is still sufficient to warrant an obstruction of justice enhancement. See United States v. Gage, 183 F.3d 711, 716 (7th Cir. 1999) (finding that the defendant could perjure himself for purposes of U.S.S.G. sec. 3C1.1 by representing that he remembered an event when he did not). Thus, whether White’s drug use influenced his memory of events does not detract from the finding that he had willfully intended to provide false testimony. Therefore, we conclude the district court did not clearly err in determining that White had obstructed justice by perjuring himself during the course of trial. C. Necessity of Individualized Findings of Perjury White’s other contention on appeal is that the district court failed to make a finding regarding which specific testimony amounted to perjury./4 As we noted in Hickok, the independent finding requirement is not as exacting as one would assume. 77 F.3d at 1008. While the Supreme Court has articulated that, when making a finding of perjury, it is preferable to have the district court address each element of the alleged perjury in a separate and clear finding, the district court’s determination that the obstruction of justice enhancement is required is sufficient if the court makes a finding of an obstruction or impediment of justice that encompasses all of the factual predicates for a finding of perjury. Dunnigan, 507 U.S. at 95. Hence, it is not necessary for the sentencing judge to conduct a mini-trial with respect to each of the defendant’s false statements, nor must the judge set forth his or her findings specifically in terms of the elements of perjury. As we have interpreted Dunnigan, separate findings are not strictly necessary so long as the court determined that the defendant lied to the judge and jury about matters crucial to the question of the defendant’s guilt. See Hickok, 77 F.3d at 1008 (citing United States v. Mustread, 42 F.3d 1097, 1105 (7th Cir. 1994). Reviewing the record in this matter, we find that the factual findings of the district court are consistent with the requirements set forth in Dunnigan. The sentencing transcript makes evident that the court determined that White knew what he was saying and doing when he took the stand and denied basic facts regarding his participation in the fraud. As was noted during oral argument, White did not deny, in a piecemeal fashion, specific conduct during the relevant stretch of time. Rather, he systematically and in a wholesale fashion contradicted the eyewitness testimonies of eight witnesses concerning every aspect of his participation in the insurance fraud. Given that White’s relevant testimony as a whole was predominately falsified, we believe it was unnecessary for the court to peruse the trial transcript to point out every instance in which White perjured himself. As such, we find that the district court’s finding of perjury was sufficiently established.