Professional Documents
Culture Documents
United States v. Johnie D. Ford, 83 F.3d 434, 10th Cir. (1996)
United States v. Johnie D. Ford, 83 F.3d 434, 10th Cir. (1996)
3d 434
NOTICE: Although citation of unpublished opinions remains unfavored,
unpublished opinions may now be cited if the opinion has persuasive value on a
material issue, and a copy is attached to the citing document or, if cited in oral
argument, copies are furnished to the Court and all parties. See General Order of
November 29, 1993, suspending 10th Cir. Rule 36.3 until December 31, 1995, or
further order.
U.S.C. 2255, alleging the district court improperly enhanced for obstruction of
justice without making specific findings of perjury required by United States v.
Dunnigan, 507 U.S. 87, 95 (1993). The district court granted the motion and
resentenced defendant, again enhancing for an obstruction of justice after
making specific findings that defendant's trial testimony included perjury.
Defendant appeals from the resentencing, arguing the district court erred by
imposing a two-level enhancement for obstruction of justice.
2
We review the district court's finding of perjury in a 3C1.1 context under the
clearly erroneous standard. United States v. Fitzherbert, 13 F.3d 340, 344 (10th
Cir.1993), cert. denied, 114 S.Ct. 1627 (1994). "Because 'the trial judge is
entitled to observe the defendant at trial and consider in sentencing whether he
... gave perjured testimony,' we apply deference in reviewing a district court's
finding of perjury." United States v. Yost, 24 F.3d 99, 106 (10th Cir.1994)
(quoting United States v. Markum, 4 F.3d 891, 897 (10th Cir.1993)); see also
United States v. Sauseda, 24 F.3d 97, 99 (10th Cir.1994)(deference given to
district court's application of Sentencing Guidelines to facts).
Defendant challenges the first finding, that he did not know of or possess
cocaine at the above address on February 3, 1989, by alleging his testimony
was not contradicted and its falsity was not established. According to
defendant, the government's case was entirely circumstantial, based on
constructive possession. The district court makes its factual determinations
under a preponderance of the evidence standard, United States v. Beaulieu, 900
F.2d 1537, 1540 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 497 U.S. 1009 (1990), and perjury
may be proved through circumstantial evidence, United States v. Onumonu,
999 F.2d 43, 46 (2d Cir.1993); United States v. Akitoye, 923 F.2d 221, 229 (1st
Cir.1991); United States v. Barbosa, 906 F.2d 1366, 1370 (9th Cir.), cert.
denied, 498 U.S. 961 (1990). Defendant's confession to law enforcement
officers and the informant's testimony that he purchased cocaine from
defendant at this residence in January 1989 support the district court's perjury
finding. Possession of cocaine is a material matter which defendant is not likely
to have been confused or mistaken about or to have forgotten. See United States
v. Garcia, 994 F.2d 1499, 1509 (10th Cir.1993). Thus, because there is not a
lack of evidence contradicting defendant's statements, see United States v. Ford,
996 F.2d 312, 1993 WL 213915, at * * 1 (10th Cir.1993)(table)(determination
in prior 2255 appeal that evidence against defendant was substantial); see also
Dunnigan, 507 U.S. at 95-96 (given numerous witnesses who contradicted
respondent regarding many facts on which she could not be mistaken, there was
ample evidence to support district court's findings), we conclude the district
court's finding of perjury was not clearly erroneous. Cf. Hilliard, 31 F.3d at
1519-20 (lack of evidence to contradict the defendant's statements and render
them possibly false made district court's findings clearly erroneous).
denied, 502 U.S. 928 (1991). This finding of perjury was not clearly erroneous.
7
With regard to the third finding, that defendant committed perjury when he
testified that he had never been a cocaine dealer, defendant again argues lack of
materiality. Defendant contends that the informant's testimony, that he
purchased crack cocaine from defendant in January 1989, does not relate to the
"instant offense," as is required by 3C1.1. Although the conduct relied upon to
support an obstruction of justice enhancement must relate to the crime of
conviction, Levy, 992 F.2d at 1084, there is no requirement that the evidence
directly apply to the elements of the offense. The evidence here established that
defendant was a cocaine dealer. He confessed that he was a cocaine dealer; an
informant testified that he had purchased cocaine from defendant at that
location the previous month; and defendant had just left an apartment where his
gun and the cocaine were found. Whether defendant was a cocaine dealer at
any time, including February 3, was material to whether he possessed cocaine
with an intent to distribute on February 3. This finding of perjury also was not
clearly erroneous.
In a separate pro se brief, defendant argues the district court was precluded
from making a second finding of perjury when the initial findings were
inadequate. This argument is without merit. Cf. Markum, 4 F.3d at 898
(remanding for resentencing in accordance with Dunnigan requirement that
district court make proper findings for obstruction of justice enhancement).
10
The judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Kansas is
AFFIRMED.
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of
law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally
disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and
judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3
Judge Seth died March 27, 1996. However, he had fully considered the matter
and voted prior to his death
*** Honorable Clarence A. Brimmer, District Judge, United States District Court
for the District of Wyoming, sitting by designation
3
Defendant has not challenged the facts underlying his 924(c)(1) conviction.
Thus, we do not now address the applicability of Bailey to the merits of
defendant's firearm conviction. The disposition of this appeal, however, is
without prejudice to a future 2255 motion based on the alleged applicability of
Bailey