United States v. Jose Jimenez-Ortega

We address whether a district judge must make a finding of materiality before he can enhance a defendant’s sentence for obstruction of justice based on perjury under U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1.

Facts

Defendant was apprehended near an Imperial County recreation area after abandoning a Jeep Cherokee packed full of marijuana. He was charged with import ing narcotics and possessing narcotics with intent to distribute. Defendant testified at trial and a jury convicted him on both counts.

At sentencing the judge characterized defendant’s trial testimony as “so incredible, in light of all of the evidence, that it was clear to the court that you intended to obstruct or impede justice with your version of the facts. Your testimony was not the result of any confusion, mistake or faulty memory, but an attempt to willfully obstruct justice.” The court imposed an upward adjustment, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1, increasing defendant’s guidelines range from 70-87 months to 87-108 months.

On appeal, defendant questions the adequacy of the district judge’s finding that he had obstructed justice by giving false testimony at trial.

Analysis

Before it may adjust defendant’s sentence for obstruction of…