IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
__________________
No. 95-40070
Conference Calendar
__________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
EARL JOSEPH HINES, JR.,
Defendant-Appellant.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 1:94-CR-99-3
- - - - - - - - - -
August 22, 1995
Before KING, JOLLY, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Earl Joseph Hines, Jr., challenges the district court's two-
level upward adjustment for obstruction of justice. He argues
that his failure to advise law enforcement officers and the
probation officer that he had given a codefendant money to buy
drugs was not material to the offense, that this omission did not
impede the investigation of the case, and that the Government
*
Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions
that have no precedential value and merely decide particular
cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes
needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal
profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published.
No. 95-40070
-2-
failed to prove that he intended to impede the administration of
justice.
A district court's finding that a defendant has obstructed
justice under § 3C1.1 is a factual finding reviewed for clear
error. United States v. Storm, 36 F.3d 1289, 1295 (5th Cir.
1994), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 1798 (1995). "Section 3C1.1
provides for the enhancement of a defendant's offense level `[i]f
the defendant willfully obstructed or impeded, or attempted to
obstruct or impede, the administration of justice during the
investigation, prosecution, or sentencing of the instant
offense.'" United States v. Cabral-Castillo, 35 F.3d 182, 186
(5th Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 1157 (1995). The
adjustment may be appropriate when the defendant provides
materially false information to a probation officer. § 3C1.1,
comment. n.3(h). Material evidence, as used within § 3C1.1,
means evidence that "if believed, would tend to influence or
affect the issue under determination." § 3C1.1, comment.
(n.5)(emphasis added).
Contrary to Hines' argument, his statements to the probation
officer directly affected an issue under determination: the role
of each defendant and their respective guideline calculations.
Hines' repeated attempts to minimize his role in the offense
demonstrate that he made the statements willfully. The district
court did not clearly err in increasing Hines' offense level for
obstruction of justice. Accordingly, the district court's
judgment is AFFIRMED.