Court Opinion

ID: 9495595
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 16:06:37.2594+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:57:06.499685
License: Public Domain

WOLLMAN, Circuit Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I concur in all but that portion of the court’s opinion which sets aside the two-level enhancement for obstruction of justice based upon the district court’s finding that Farmer had committed perjury.
In finding that Farmer’s testimony was untrue, the district court stated:
Evaluating the defendant’s trial testimony in the light most favorable to the defendant, I do not believe that a reasonable trier of fact would have found that testimony to be true. One of the most problematic aspects of the testimony is Mr. Farmer’s denial that he possessed the weapon as reflected in the transcript .... And I specifically find that that testimony was untrue.
The district court then continued with its recitation of its findings, as quoted by the court above. I am satisfied that the record supports the district court’s finding that the preponderance of the evidence revealed that Farmer committed perjury. Although it would have been preferable for the government to produce the gun cleaning kit, I cannot fault the district court for relying upon the inventory report as support for its finding that Farmer lied when he denied that he had possessed the handgun.3
I would affirm the sentence as well as the conviction.

. Whether the gun cleaning kit was destroyed or misplaced, we do not know. See Kevin Peraino, A Lot of Lost Causes, Newsweek, Nov. 25, 2002, at 10. (Reporting on “numerous examples of flawed procedures and lost evidence” in the Kansas City Police Department.)