United States v. Kennedy

USCA1 Opinion









September 9, 1992 [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT


____________________


No. 92-1158

UNITED STATES,

Appellee,

v.

JOHN P. KENNEDY,

Defendant, Appellant.

____________________

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND


[Hon. Ernest C. Torres, U.S. District Judge]
___________________

____________________

Before

Torruella and Stahl, Circuit Judges,
______________
and Hornby,* District Judge.
______________

____________________

Marie T. Roebuck, by Appointment of the Court, for appellant.
________________
Ira Belkin, Assistant United States Attorney, with whom Lincoln
__________ _______
C. Almond, United States Attorney, Margaret E. Curran, Assistant
__________ ___________________
United States Attorney, and Anthony C. DiGioia, Assistant United
____________________
States Attorney, were on brief for appellee.

____________________

____________________

_____________________

* Of the District of Maine, sitting by designation.
















HORNBY, District Judge. This case raises Guideline
______________

sentencing issues, only one of which deserves extended comment.

We hold that a defendant's perjury at his sentencing, even though

limited to a count where he maintains his innocence, justifies an

obstruction of justice enhancement under U.S.S.G. 3C1.1 and a

denial of acceptance of responsibility under U.S.S.G. 3E1.1.

The defendant entered a plea of Not Guilty to Count VI

of the Indictment, which charged him with impersonating an IRS

employee. A plea agreement provided that this count would be

dismissed at sentencing on the other counts, to which he did

plead Guilty. The prosecutor stated on the record at the Rule 11

hearing, however, that the Government would seek a two-level

enhancement for the conduct underlying the impersonation count

because that was conduct relevant to the admitted offenses.

If the defendant subsequently had simply declined to

say anything about the alleged impersonation, his silence would

not have denied him a two-level adjustment for acceptance of

responsibility under U.S.S.G. 3E1.1. This Circuit holds it

inappropriate to deny the reduction for refusing to admit conduct

involved in a charge to which a defendant has pleaded Not Guilty.

United States v. Perez-Franco, 873 F.2d 455, 463-64 (1st Cir.
______________________________

1989). Accord United States v. Rogers, 921 F.2d 975, 982 (10th
______ ________________________

Cir.), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 111 S. Ct. 113, 112 L. Ed. 2d
____ ______

83 (1990); United States v. Piper, 918 F.2d 839, 840-41 (9th Cir.
______________________

1990); United States v. Oliveras, 905 F.2d 623, 628-32 (2nd Cir.
_________________________

1990). But see United States v. Mourning, 914 F.2d 699, 705-07
___ ___ _________________________


-2-














(5th Cir. 1990); United States v. Ignacio Munio, 909 F.2d 436,
_______________________________

439 n.11 (11th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 111 S. Ct.
____ ______

1393, 113 L. Ed. 2d 449 (1991); United States v. Gordon, 895 F.2d
_______________________

932, 936-37 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 111 S. Ct.
____ ______

131, 112 L. Ed. 2d 98 (1990). But this defendant elected to take

the stand at his sentencing hearing. He then, under oath,

provided testimony (concerning the alleged impersonation) that

the District Court supportably found to be materially false.

Perjury at a sentencing hearing clearly justifies the two-level

enhancement for obstruction of justice under U.S.S.G. 3C1.1.

See U.S.S.G. 3C1.1, comment. (n.3(b)) (specifically listing
___

perjury as one of the kinds of conduct justifying the

enhancement). As for acceptance of responsibility, his perjury

behavior took the defendant out of the "safe harbor" that this

Circuit has otherwise provided for simply maintaining a Not

Guilty plea. Moreover, Application note 4 to U.S.S.G. 3E1.1

recognizes that, although there may be "extraordinary cases,"

conduct justifying an enhancement for obstructing justice

"ordinarily indicates that the defendant has not accepted

responsibility for his criminal conduct." U.S.S.G. 3E1.1,

comment. (n.4). This is not an extraordinary case. The

sentencing judge was fully entitled to conclude that the

defendant's perjury at the sentencing hearing showed a failure to








-3-














accept responsibility. Perjury as to relevant conduct is not at

all like maintaining a Not Guilty plea.1



We dispose of the other issues summarily. The District

Court proceeded to find that the defendant had falsely

represented himself to be an Internal Revenue Service employee.

The court accordingly applied an appropriate two-level

enhancement to the Base Offense Level because there was a clear

nexus between this conduct and the fraud offenses to which the

defendant pleaded Guilty. See U.S.S.G. 2F1.1(b)(3). The
___

District Court's factual determination, reached after an

evidentiary hearing, was not clearly erroneous, United States v.
________________

Connell, 960 F.2d 191, 193 (1st Cir. 1992). The District Court
_______

was entitled to rely upon hearsay testimony,2 see United States
___ ______________

v. Zuleta-Alvarez, 922 F.2d 33, 36 (1st Cir. 1990), cert. denied,
_________________ ____ ______



____________________

1 We do not rely upon it, but observe that a proposed
revision to Guideline 3E1.1 commentary would make this explicit:

A defendant may remain silent in respect to
relevant conduct beyond the offense of
conviction without affecting his ability to
obtain a reduction under this subsection.
However, a defendant who falsely denies, or
frivolously contests, relevant conduct that
the Court determines to be true has acted in
a manner inconsistent with acceptance of
responsibility.

Proposed Amendment to Sentencing Guidelines of the United States
Courts, 57 Fed. Reg. 20,148, 20,156 (1992) (proposed May 11,
1992).

2 Here, the defendant did not raise any confrontation issue
at the hearing.

-4-














___ U.S. ___, 111 S. Ct. 2039, 114 L. Ed. 2d 123 (1991), as well

as its disbelief of the defendant's testimony.

Contrary to the defendant's argument, the Guidelines

provide that this enhancement under U.S.S.G. 2F1.1(b)(3) for

impersonation can be added to that under U.S.S.G. 2F1.1(b)(2)

for more than minimal planning. Only the adjustments in U.S.S.G.

2F1.1(b)(3) itself are mutually exclusive.3 Accord United
______ ______

States v. Villarino, 930 F.2d 1527, 1529 (11th Cir. 1991).
_____________________

Applying both enhancements does not result in double counting

because the enhancement for more than minimal planning is based

on a different factual premise than that for impersonation.

Moreover, nothing in the Guideline caps these enhancements at an

offense level of ten. Indeed, if the impersonation enhancement

applies, ten is the minimum offense level. U.S.S.G.
_______

2F1.1(b)(3).

Finally, because the difference between the minimum and

maximum terms in the Guideline range here was only six months,

the District Court was not required to state its reasons for the



____________________

3 Prior to November 1, 1989, the enhancement in U.S.S.G.
2F1.1(b)(3) had been included in U.S.S.G. 2F1.1(b)(2). Under
that earlier version of the Guidelines, the enhancements for
impersonation and more than minimal planning were mutually
exclusive. Effective November 1, 1989, however, the Guidelines
were amended by splitting the enhancements contained in the old
version of U.S.S.G. 2F1.1(b)(2) into two separate categories.
The impersonation enhancement (along with an enhancement for
violation of judicial orders) became U.S.S.G. 2F1.1(b)(3).
Only the adjustments within U.S.S.G. 2F1.1(b)(3) are described
____
as mutually exclusive. See U.S.S.G. 2F1.1, comment. (n.1).
___
Nothing prevents application of one enhancement from each of
U.S.S.G. 2F1.1(b)(3) and 2F1.1(b)(2).

-5-














specific point within the Guideline range at which it sentenced

the defendant. See 18 U.S.C. 3553(c).
___

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
________
















































-6-