NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 29 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 16-10509
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 4:09-cr-00167-JST
v.
MEMORANDUM*
EDWARD LEE SULLIVAN, a.k.a. Three
Stacks,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Jon S. Tigar, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 26, 2017**
Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Edward Lee Sullivan appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges the 324-month sentence imposed upon remand for resentencing
following his bench-trial conviction for production of child pornography, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a); and possession of child pornography, in violation
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(4). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we
affirm.
Sullivan contends that the district court erred by applying an obstruction of
justice enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1. We review the district court’s
factual findings for clear error and its application of the Guidelines to the facts for
abuse of discretion. See United States v. Gasca-Ruiz, 852 F.3d 1167, 1170 (9th
Cir. 2017) (en banc). Contrary to Sullivan’s contention, the district court made
sufficient factual findings to support the enhancement, including a finding that
Sullivan willfully gave false testimony on a material matter at trial. See United
States v. Jimenez-Ortega, 472 F.3d 1102, 1103 (9th Cir. 2007) (discussing the
required elements for an obstruction of justice enhancement); see also U.S.S.G.
§ 3C1.1 cmt. n.4(F) (enhancement is proper when defendant provides “materially
false information to a judge”).
AFFIRMED.
2 16-10509