United States v. Kenneth Townsend, 664 F. App'x 202

FBI investigation linked Damon Boyd and Carter Gaston to local cocaine/heroin trafficking; agents observed Boyd and Gaston frequenting Kenneth Townsend’s residence and found wet crack and processing items during a search of Townsend’s home.
Townsend was convicted of possession with intent to distribute cocaine and crack; a conspiracy charge ended in a hung jury and was dismissed.
At initial sentencing Townsend was treated as a career offender (based on prior drug and flight convictions); the Guidelines range was 360 months to life, but the district court granted a downward variance to 200 months.
On appeal the Third Circuit vacated Townsend’s sentence under Johnson v. United States because his flight conviction no longer qualified as a crime of violence, and remanded for resentencing.
On remand the government sought a two‑level U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1 obstruction enhancement based on the district court’s finding that Townsend perjured himself; the court credited Gaston’s out‑of‑court proffer to the FBI (given under the safety‑valve) and other indicia of reliability.
The district court applied the obstruction enhancement, recalculated the Guidelines (135–168 months), and resentenced Townsend to 200 months; the Third Circuit affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court erred by relying on Gaston’s out‑of‑court proffer (hearsay) to find Townsend committed perjury	Townsend: Gaston’s proffer is unreliable and self‑serving; court should not credit it	Government: Gaston’s proffer was made under safety‑valve (truthfulness required) and had corroborating indicia of reliability	Court: Not clear error to credit Gaston; safety‑valve incentive and corroborating facts provided sufficient indicia of reliability
Whether the district court sufficiently found the elements of perjury to justify a § 3C1.1 enhancement	Townsend: Court did not separately address each perjury element	Government: Court’s finding of intentional, material misrepresentations that contradicted other evidence is adequate	Court: Sufficient — a finding that encompassed the factual predicates for perjury is enough; enhancement proper

Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) (invalidating part of ACCA and affecting career‑offender status)
United States v. Napolitan, 762 F.3d 297 (3d Cir. 2014) (standard of review for factual findings of false testimony)
United States v. Fumo, 655 F.3d 288 (3d Cir. 2011) (abuse‑of‑discretion review for sentencing enhancements)
United States v. Brothers, 75 F.3d 845 (3d Cir. 1996) (out‑of‑court statements may be used at sentencing if sufficiently reliable)
United States v. Sabir, 117 F.3d 750 (3d Cir. 1997) (safety‑valve truthfulness requirement discussed)
United States v. Aidoo, 670 F.3d 600 (4th Cir. 2012) (explaining the defendant’s burden to prove truthful safety‑valve disclosure)
United States v. Dunnigan, 507 U.S. 87 (1993) (discussing acceptable scope of district court findings when imposing perjury‑based enhancements)