IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-10971
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
MICHAEL DARNELL TRIBBLE,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
(4:00-CR-293-3-A)
--------------------
February 28, 2002
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Defendant-Appellant Michael Darnell Tribble appeals his
sentence following his jury-trial conviction for bank robbery, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a). Tribble 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 pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1, based on
his alleged perjury. Tribble contends that the district court did
not specify the testimony that it found to be false.
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
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. Storm, 36 F.3d 1289, 1295 (5th Cir. 1994).
Because Tribble objected to the obstruction enhancement for
perjury, the district court was required to “review the evidence
and make independent findings necessary to establish a willful
impediment to or obstruction of justice, or an attempt to do the
same, under the perjury definition.” United States v. Como, 53
F.3d 87, 89 (5th Cir. 1995) (citing United States v. Dunnigan, 507
U.S. 87, 95 (1993)). Separate and clear findings on each element
of the alleged perjury are not required. See Como, 53 F.3d at 89.
The district court’s statement at sentencing and the adoption
of the second presentence report addendum which specifically
delineated those portions of Tribble’s testimony that were
contradictory to those of the testifying codefendants were
sufficient to justify the obstruction-of-justice enhancement. See
United States v. Cabral-Castillo, 35 F.3d 182, 186 (5th Cir. 1994).
AFFIRMED.
S:\OPINIONS\UNPUB\01\01-10971.0.wpd
4/29/04 2:25 pm
2