Opinion ID: 659953
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: U.S.S.G. Sec. 3C1.1

Text: 22 Dean Fitzherbert argues that the district court improperly enhanced his base offense level by two levels for obstruction of justice, pursuant to Sec. 3C1.1 of the Sentencing Guidelines, on the basis of the court's finding that Dean committed perjury. Citing United States v. Colletti, 984 F.2d 1339 (3d Cir.1992), Dean claims that this was error because there was no showing that the alleged perjury actually obstructed or interfered with the administration of justice by putting the government to more proof than would otherwise have been necessary. 23 We review the district court's finding of perjury in this context under the clearly erroneous standard. United States v. Litchfield, 959 F.2d 1514, 1523 (10th Cir.1992); United States v. McCann, 940 F.2d 1352, 1360 (10th Cir.1991). The issue whether perjury without more justified a sentence enhancement is a question of law, to be considered de novo. 24 Unlike the Third Circuit in Colletti, this Circuit has upheld enhancement for obstruction of justice based solely on perjury. United States v. Beaulieu, 900 F.2d 1537 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 497 U.S. 1009, 110 S.Ct. 3252, 111 L.Ed.2d 762 (1990). Moreover, in United States v. Dunnigan, --- U.S. ----, 113 S.Ct. 1111, 122 L.Ed.2d 445 (1993), the Supreme Court appears to have rejected the approach taken in Colletti. In Dunnigan, the Court held that a district court may enhance a sentence for obstruction of justice under Sec. 3C1.1 because of the defendant's perjury at trial. The Court noted that the commentary to Sec. 3C1.1 expressly includes perjury as an example of conduct that may justify enhancement. Id. --- U.S. at ----, 113 S.Ct. at 1115-16 (citing U.S.S.G. Sec. 3C1.1, Application Note 3(b)). The Court acknowledged the existence of a line of cases that do not interpret perjury to constitute an obstruction of justice unless the perjury is part of some greater design to interfere with judicial proceedings, id., --- U.S. at ----, 113 S.Ct. at 1116 (citing In re Michael, 326 U.S. 224, 66 S.Ct. 78, 90 L.Ed. 30 (1945); Ex parte Hudgings, 249 U.S. 378, 39 S.Ct. 337, 63 L.Ed. 656 (1919)). The Court, however, distinguished these cases as restrictive applications of the contempt power, noting that in the context of Sec. 3C1.1 the enhancement provision is part of a sentencing scheme designed to determine the appropriate type and extent of punishment after the issue of guilt has been resolved. Id. 25 The Court also rejected the argument that Sec. 3C1.1 burdens the right to testify, noting that the right to testify does not include a right to commit perjury, id., --- U.S. at ----, 113 S.Ct. at 1117 (citing Nix v. Whiteside, 475 U.S. 157, 173, 106 S.Ct. 988, 997, 89 L.Ed.2d 123 (1986); United States v. Havens, 446 U.S. 620, 626, 100 S.Ct. 1912, 1915, 64 L.Ed.2d 559 (1980); United States v. Grayson, 438 U.S. 41, 54, 98 S.Ct. 2610, 2616, 57 L.Ed.2d 582 (1978)), and that the risk that the enhancement will apply every time a defendant testifies and is subsequently convicted is dispelled by the requirement that the district court make specific findings to support all of the elements of a perjury violation. Id., --- U.S. at ----, 113 S.Ct. at 1117-18; see also United States v. Garcia, 994 F.2d 1499, 1509 (10th Cir.1993). 26 We believe that the district judge made sufficient findings to support the enhancement. Dean made conflicting statements to law enforcement personnel before he settled on the position that he and his brother Chad were jointly responsible for the marijuana growing operation. Dean then testified at trial that Chad was solely responsible, contradicting the testimony of the investigating officers and the weight of the evidence. The district judge found that this testimony reflected a strategy to place the blame for the operation on a family member who was charged as a juvenile and would therefore suffer the least penalty. It is true that the district judge said that there was no showing that the government was put to an additional burden because of Dean's perjurious testimony. The judge, however, was disturbed by the effort of defendant and his family to place the blame for growing 190 marijuana plants upon a juvenile, apparently upon the belief that he had the least to lose. We see no persuasive reason to disturb the judge's conclusion that this constituted an obstruction of justice. 27 Accordingly, the judgments of conviction are affirmed in all respects.