United States v. Edward Sullivan

698 F. App'x 416
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in United States v. Edward Sullivan. Read the opinion of the Court — 797 F.3d 623
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·Decided September 29, 2017·No. 16-10509·Unpublished

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Edward Lee Sullivan appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges *417 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 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.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

United States v. Edward Sullivan, 698 F. App'x 416 (9th Cir. 2017).

698 F. App'x 416 (United States v. Edward Sullivan) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

United States v. Jose Jimenez-Ortega
472 F.3d 1102 (Ninth Circuit, 2007)
United States v. Francisco Gasca-Ruiz
852 F.3d 1167 (Ninth Circuit, 2017)