United States v. Johnson, No. 14-10113 (9th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CaseDefendant was indicted for obstructing justice by lying under oath to a grand jury about his role in impeding an investigation. During trial, defendant testified and allegedly lied under oath again. The district judge applied an enhancement for obstruction of justice under USSG 3C1.1 based on defendant's trial testimony, without expressly finding that the testimony was willfully or materially false. The court agreed with the parties that the district court erred by enhancing the sentence without making the findings necessary to show that defendant's trial testimony was, in fact, perjury. The court rejected defendant's contention that, even if his trial testimony was perjurious, the obstruction enhancement cannot be applied. The court concluded that applying the obstruction enhancement to defendant's false trial testimony does not impermissibly penalize him twice for the same conduct if the district court finds that his trial testimony was false, willful, and material. The court remanded for the district court to make express findings as to the willfulness and materiality of defendant’s trial testimony in light of United States v. Castro-Ponce in order to determine whether the obstruction enhancement applies, and to resentence accordingly. Finally, the court denied defendant's request for reassignment to a different judge on remand.
Court Description: Criminal Law. The panel vacated a sentence and remanded for resentencing in a case in which the defendant, who was convicted of committing perjury before a grand jury, received an obstruction-of-justice enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1 for committing perjury at trial on the underlying perjury charge. The panel agreed with the parties that the district court erred by applying the § 3C1.1 enhancement without making the requisite express findings that the trial testimony was willfully and materially false. The panel rejected the defendant’s request to instruct the district court that, even if his trial testimony was perjurious, the obstruction enhancement cannot be applied. The panel wrote that the record does not support the defendant’s argument that his trial testimony largely repeated the false grand jury testimony that led to the underlying perjury conviction, and concluded that inconsistencies between the grand jury and trial testimony could make the trial testimony (if found to be willfully and materially false) a “significant further obstruction” under Application Note 7 to 3C1.1. The panel explained that perjury does not have to actually impede a prosecution or trial to be a “significant further obstruction” under Application Note 7. The panel UNITED STATES V. JOHNSON 3 rejected the defendant’s contention that applying the enhancem ent woul d cons t i t ut e i m permi s s i bl e double-counting. The panel remanded for the district court to make express findings as to the willfulness and materiality of the defendant’s trial testimony in order to determine whether the obstruction enhancement applies, and to resentence accordingly. The panel rejected the defendant’s request to remand to a different district judge.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.