Court Opinion

ID: 4207950
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2017-09-29 20:01:05.275124+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:24:04.840577
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        SEP 29 2017
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                       No. 16-10509

                Plaintiff-Appellee,             D.C. No. 4:09-cr-00167-JST

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
EDWARD LEE SULLIVAN, a.k.a. Three
Stacks,

                Defendant-Appellant.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Northern District of California
                     Jon S. Tigar, District Judge, Presiding

                          Submitted September 26, 2017**

Before:      SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

      Edward Lee Sullivan appeals from the district court’s judgment and

challenges the 324-month sentence imposed upon remand for resentencing

following his bench-trial conviction for production of child pornography, in

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a); and possession of child pornography, in violation

      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
      **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(4). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we

affirm.

      Sullivan contends that the district court erred by applying an obstruction of

justice enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1. We review the district court’s

factual findings for clear error and its application of the Guidelines to the facts for

abuse of discretion. See United States v. Gasca-Ruiz, 852 F.3d 1167, 1170 (9th

Cir. 2017) (en banc). Contrary to Sullivan’s contention, the district court made

sufficient factual findings to support the enhancement, including a finding that

Sullivan willfully gave false testimony on a material matter at trial. See United

States v. Jimenez-Ortega, 472 F.3d 1102, 1103 (9th Cir. 2007) (discussing the

required elements for an obstruction of justice enhancement); see also U.S.S.G.

§ 3C1.1 cmt. n.4(F) (enhancement is proper when defendant provides “materially

false information to a judge”).

      AFFIRMED.

                                           2                                     16-10509