514 F. App'x 13
2d Cir.2013Background
- Concepcion-Santos was convicted after a November 29, 2011 bench trial on conspiracy to commit access device fraud, access device fraud, bank fraud, and aggravated identity theft.
- The district court sentenced him on February 29, 2012 to 51 months’ imprisonment with a two-level obstruction of justice enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1.
- The appeal challenged the obstruction enhancement as procedurally flawed—asserting the affidavit statements were not willful obstruction and the court failed to make explicit willfulness findings.
- The government argued the enhancement can be based on a knowingly false affidavit, citing Lincecum and related authority.
- This court reviews obstruction-of-justice enhancements for reasonableness, including potential procedural errors such as inadequate findings or misapplication of the guidelines.
- The Second Circuit affirmed, finding the district court’s credibility determinations and the record supported an obstruction-of-justice enhancement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether obstruction enhancement was proper given the affidavit | Santos argued the affidavit was not willful obstruction | Concepcion-Santos contends no willful obstruction or insufficient findings | Obstruction enhancement affirmed; evidence supported willfulness and findings adequate |
| Whether the district court properly found willfulness | Santos claims lack of explicit willfulness findings | Government asserts general finding of obstruction suffices | District court did not err; explicit findings not required where there is a clear finding of obstruction |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Lincecum, 220 F.3d 77 (2d Cir. 2000) (foundation for applying § 3C1.1 to false affidavits)
- United States v. Reed, 49 F.3d 895 (2d Cir. 1995) (necessity of willfulness for obstruction enhancement)
- United States v. Catano-Alzate, 62 F.3d 41 (2d Cir. 1995) (no need for separate perjury findings if obstruction is found generally)
- United States v. Ben-Shimon, 249 F.3d 98 (2d Cir. 2001) (district court may rely on its own findings rather than PSR)
- United States v. Agudelo, 414 F.3d 345 (2d Cir. 2005) (distinguishes confusion from willful obstruction)
- United States v. Stewart, 686 F.3d 156 (2d Cir. 2012) (special deference to witness credibility in abuse-of-discretion review)
- United States v. Dunnigan, 507 U.S. 87 (Supreme Court 1993) (definition of willful obstruction and false testimony)
- United States v. Cavera, 550 F.3d 180 (2d Cir. 2008) (en banc; framework for procedural-error review of sentences)