United States v. Deveaux

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,  Plaintiff-Appellee, v.  No. 01-4968 LEROY MAURICE DEVEAUX, a/k/a Leroy Dover, Defendant-Appellant.  Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Orangeburg. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (CR-01-96) Submitted: August 22, 2002 Decided: September 4, 2002 Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. COUNSEL William N. Nettles, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. J. Strom Thurmond, Jr., United States Attorney, William K. Wither- spoon, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. 2 UNITED STATES v. DEVEAUX Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). OPINION PER CURIAM: Leroy Maurice Deveaux was convicted of possession with intent to distribute less than 500 grams of cocaine and 50 grams or more of cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841 (2000). He appeals the district court’s two level enhancement of his base offense level for obstruction of justice under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 3C1.1 (2000). The district court made its findings based on a sup- pression hearing in which Deveaux testified that law enforcement officers’ search of his person was nonconsensual and conducted with- out Miranda warnings. The court found that this testimony was per- jured and accordingly departed upward two levels in imposing the enhancement. Whether Deveaux’s testimony obstructed justice is a factual deter- mination that we review for clear error. See United States v. Self, 132 F.3d 1039, 1041 (4th Cir. 1997). If a defendant objects to the enhancement for committing perjury, the district court must make independent findings necessary to establish that the testimony was perjured. See United States v. Stotts, 113 F.3d 493, 497 (4th Cir. 1997). It is preferable for the court to address, in a separate finding, each individual element of perjury: (1) false testimony; (2) concern- ing a material matter; and (3) made with the intent to obstruct justice, rather than as a result of confusion or mistake. See United States v. Dunnigan, 507 U.S. 87, 94 (1993). However, if the court’s singular finding encompasses all of these necessary factual predicates, it is sufficiently justified. See id. at 95. See also United States v. Stotts, 113 F.3d 493, 498 (4th Cir. 1997) (requiring the district court to address each element of the alleged perjury in a separate finding or make a global finding that encompasses each factual predicate for a perjury finding). We find the court made proper findings that addressed each factual predicate for its finding that Deveaux commit- ted perjury. Hence, it was not clearly erroneous for the court to enhance Deveaux’s offense level for obstruction of justice. UNITED STATES v. DEVEAUX 3 Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. We dis- pense with oral argument, because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED