Case: 11-10728 Date Filed: 10/04/2012 Page: 1 of 4
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 11-10728
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:09-cr-00189-MEF-SRW-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ALLEN CAPRICE STOUDEMIRE,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Alabama
________________________
(October 4, 2012)
Before DUBINA, Chief Judge, BARKETT and WILSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 11-10728 Date Filed: 10/04/2012 Page: 2 of 4
Appellant Allen Caprice Stoudemire appeals his 27-month sentence after a
jury convicted him on one count of manufacturing marijuana, in violation of 21
U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). He argues that the district court clearly erred when it failed to
make adequate factual findings in support of an obstruction of justice
enhancement, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1.
We ordinarily review a district court’s factual findings regarding the
imposition of an enhancement for obstruction of justice for clear error, and the
district court’s application of the factual findings to the guidelines de novo.
United States v. Uscinski, 369 F.3d 1243, 1246 (11th Cir. 2004).
“[I]n order to permit meaningful appellate review, a district court applying
the obstruction of justice enhancement must specifically state what the defendant
did, why that conduct warranted the enhancement, and how that conduct actually
hindered the investigation or prosecution of the offense.” United States v. Taylor,
88 F.3d 938, 944 (11th Cir. 1996). Where perjury underlies the enhancement, it is
preferable that a district court “address each element of the alleged perjury in a
separate and clear finding.” United States v. Dunnigan, 507 U.S. 87, 95, 113 S.
Ct. 1111, 1117, 122 L. Ed. 2d 445 (1993). However, it is sufficient if the court
makes a finding that encompasses all of the factual predicates for a finding of
perjury. Id. Even where a district court fails to make individualized findings
2
Case: 11-10728 Date Filed: 10/04/2012 Page: 3 of 4
regarding the obstruction of justice enhancement, if the record clearly reflects the
basis for the enhancement, and supports it, a remand is unnecessary. Taylor, 88
F.3d at 944; see also Uscinski, 369 F.3d at 1246 (holding that, where record
clearly reflected the basis for the district court’s obstruction of justice
enhancement, and the defendant did not dispute that his statements supported an
enhancement, remand for additional findings was unnecessary); United States v.
Hubert, 138 F.3d at 912, 915 (11th Cir. 1998) (stating that in the context of the
record of the hearing, detailed findings were unnecessary and would have been
redundant because the PSI, which the court adopted, spelled out the perjurious
statements and the government elaborated on those statements at sentencing).
However, where a defendant fails to request more detailed perjury findings
at sentencing, that defendant cannot then complain on appeal. United States v.
Gregg, 179 F.3d 1312, 1317 (11th Cir. 1999); see also Hubert, 138 F.3d at 915
(stating that “[the defendant] did not request any particularized findings regarding
the perjurious statements at the sentencing hearing. Having failed to do so, [the
defendant] cannot now complain to this court”).
Here, because (1) the record clearly reflected the basis for the obstruction
enhancement; (2) the record supported the enhancement; and (3) Stoudemire failed
to object at sentencing to the degree of specificity of the court’s findings as to the
3
Case: 11-10728 Date Filed: 10/04/2012 Page: 4 of 4
enhancement, remand for further findings is unnecessary. Accordingly, we affirm
Stoudemire’s sentence.
AFFIRMED.
4