Opinion ID: 771974
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: standard of review

Text: 14 We review a district court's interpretation of the Guidelines de novo and its related findings of fact for clear error. See United States v. Martinez Santos, 184 F.3d 196, 198 (2d Cir. 1999). We give due deference to the district court's application of the guidelines to the facts, 18 U.S.C. §3742(e), generally overturn[ing] a district court's application of the Guidelines to the facts only if we conclude that there has been an abuse of discretion, United States v. Rivera, 192 F.3d 81, 87 (2d Cir. 1999), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1129 (2000), but bearing in mind that to the extent that an application of the Guidelines is influenced by a mistaken view of the law, our review is plenary, United States v. Rodriguez, 928 F.2d 65, 67 (2d Cir. 1991). 15 We have previously considered a district court's determination that a defendant committed more than one act of extortion for purposes of§ 2C1.1(b)(1) to be a finding of fact that we review for clear error. See United States v. Middlemiss, 217 F.3d 112, 124 (2d Cir. 2000). Two of our sister circuits have done the same with respect to the offense level for bribery convictions. See United States v. Martinez, 76 F.3d 1145, 1153-54 (10th Cir. 1996); United States v. Kahlon, 38 F.3d 467, 470 (9th Cir. 1994). In the present case, we therefore review for clear error the district court's factual finding that Arshad's payments were intended for the accomplishment of more than...one action, and we review de novo the district court's legal conclusion that separate payments for more than one purpose constitute multiple bribes under §2C1.1(b)(1). Cf. United States v. Fernandez, 127 F.3d 277, 283 (2d Cir. 1997) (reviewing the sentencing court's findings as to what acts were performed for clear error and its ruling that those facts constitute[d] attempted obstruction of justice under the Guidelines de novo).