United States v. Santos

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS October 6, 2003
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 02-41292
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
DAVID SANTOS,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. L-02-CR-279-ALL
--------------------
Before JONES, BENAVIDES and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
David Santos appeals his sentence resulting from his
jury-trial conviction for conspiracy to possess marijuana, in
violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 and 841. Santos contends that
the district court did not make the specific findings required
to justify the imposition of a two-level increase in his offense
level for obstruction of justice based on his allegedly perjurious
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
trial testimony, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1. Santos contends
that the district court erred by failing to specify which parts of
his testimony were perjurious.
We review the district court’s factual finding that a
defendant has obstructed justice under U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1 for
clear error. United States v. Adam, 296 F.3d 327, 334 (5th Cir.
2002). When the defendant objected in the district court to the
imposition of an obstruction-of-justice enhancement, but did not
also object that the district court’s findings that he committed
perjury were inadequate, review of the latter issue is for plain
error. See United States v. Holman, 314 F.3d 837, 846 (7th Cir.
2002), cert. denied, 123 S. Ct. 2238 (2003).
The district court’s statements at sentencing and its
adoption of the presentence report and addendum, which specifically
delineated those portions of Santos’s testimony that were contra-
dictory to those of government witnesses, were sufficient to
justify the obstruction-of-justice enhancement; and the district
court’s findings were adequate. See United States v. Haas, 171
F.3d 259, 268 (5th Cir. 1999).
AFFIRMED.
-2-