Court Opinion

ID: 2963494
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:10:52.073743+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:01:07.894137
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

        June 29, 1995           [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ____________________

        No. 95-1119

                                    UNITED STATES,

                                      Appellee,

                                          v.

                                  ROBYN L. ANDERSON,

                                Defendant, Appellant.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                              FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE

                     [Hon. D. Brock Hornby, U.S. District Judge]
                                            ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Cyr, Boudin and Lynch,
                                   Circuit Judges.
                                   ______________

                                 ____________________

            Robert M. Napolitano, on brief for appellant.
            ____________________
            Jay P.  McCloskey, United States  Attorney, and Michael M. DuBose,
            _________________                               _________________
        Assistant United  States Attorney,  on Motion For  Summary Disposition
        for appellee.

                                 ____________________

                                 ____________________

                                         -2-

                      Per  Curiam.       Defendant  Robyn  Anderson   was
                      ___________

            convicted  of wire fraud,  bank fraud and  credit card fraud.

            She appeals  only from one aspect  of her sentence --  a two-

            level  enhancement,  pursuant   to  U.S.S.G.      3C1.1,  for

            obstruction  of justice.   In  so doing,  defendant does  not

            challenge  the   district  court's  determination   that  she

            committed perjury in  testifying at the  trial.  Rather,  she

            argues that the  district court made insufficiently  specific

            factual findings as to  each element of a perjury  violation.

            Thus,  she  concludes, the  matter  must be  remanded  so the

            district court may make the requisite findings.

                      Once a district court determines that a defendant's

            testimony constitutes  perjury,   3C1.1 mandates  a two-level

            enhancement in  that defendant's base offense  level.  United
                                                                   ______

            States v.  Austin, 948  F.2d  783, 788  (1st Cir.  1991).   A
            ______     ______

            witness  who testifies  under  oath commits  perjury "if  she

            gives false  testimony concerning a material  matter with the

            willful intent to provide  false testimony, rather than as  a

            result  of  confusion, mistake  or faulty  memory."    United
                                                                   ______

            States v. Dunnigan, 113 S.Ct. 1111, 1116 (1993).  In deciding
            ______    ________

            whether  a defendant's BOL should be enhanced on the basis of

            perjury, the district court must  make "independent findings"

            that "encompass[] all of the factual predicates for a finding

            of perjury."   Id. at 1117.  "A sentencing court, however, is
                           __

            not required to address each element of perjury in a separate

                                         -2-

            and  clear finding."  United States  v. Matiz, 14 F.3d 79, 84
                                  _____________     _____

            (1st Cir. 1994).

                      Here,  the district  court  judge stated  that  the

            "testimony the defendant gave was clearly false, was false in

            material ways to the issue  of guilt or innocence, and .  . .

            was  willful."   He  stated also  that  "all of  the  factual

            predicates for a finding  of perjury have  been met."  It  is

            difficult to distinguish this  language from the language the

            Court approved  in Dunnigan.   In determining  that defendant
                               ________

            had committed  perjury, the Dunnigan  sentencing court stated
                                        ________

            only  that the defendant  had been "untruthful  at trial with

            respect  to material  matters" and  that the  statements were

            "designed to  substantially affect the outcome  of the case."

            Dunnigan,  113 S.Ct.  at  1114-15  (internal quotation  marks
            ________

            omitted).

                      Defendant  argues  that   the  Court  in   Dunnigan
                                                                 ________

            intended to limit its endorsement of such conclusory language

            to  the facts  of  that case.    Thus, she  posits,  Dunnigan
                                                                 ________

            requires  sentencing  courts,  in   future  cases,  to   make

            "separate  and  clear" findings.    There  is  no support  in

            Dunnigan or  elsewhere for  this interpretation.   Indeed, in
            ________                                           ______

            Matiz, we relied on Dunnigan to reject a challenge to equally
            _____               ________

            terse phrasing.  Matiz,  14 F.3d at 84 (the  sentencing court
                             _____

            stated that  it "did not credit"  defendant's testimony, that

                                         -3-

            defendant "knowingly  told a false story"  and that defendant

            "did commit perjury").

                 The  judgment   of  the  district   court  is  summarily

            affirmed.  See Local Rule 27.1.
            ________   ___

                                         -4-