455 F. App'x 781
9th Cir.2011Background
- Dehaney appeals his jury conviction and sentence for fraudulently obtaining a passport under 18 U.S.C. § 1542 and aggravated identity theft under § 1028A.
- The district court imposed a four-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L2.2(b)(3)(A) for use of a passport.
- The court applied § 2B1.6 for identity theft; the interaction between §§ 2L2.2 and 2B1.6 relevant to the enhancement.
- Dehaney challenged the read-back admonition; the court found plain error but not prejudicial to substantial rights.
- The district court also imposed a § 3C1.1 obstruction increase based on willfully false testimony; it refused a § 3E1.1 reduction for acceptance of responsibility, which Dehaney appeals.
- The Court AFFIRMS the judgment on all issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plain-error review of read-back admonition | Dehaney | Dehaney | No reversible error; not prejudicial |
| Use of 2L2.2(b)(3)(A) enhancement for passport use | State adds enhancement | Passport not a means of identification; no double counting | Enhancement proper; exception does not apply |
| Obstruction of justice enhancement under 3C1.1 | Obstruction applicable due to Willful false testimony | Not objective obstruction | Enhancement correct; testimony was willfully false on material matter |
| Acceptance of responsibility adjustment under 3E1.1 | Should have been granted reduction | Not extraordinary; remorse not convincing | No downward adjustment; district court did not clearly err |
Key Cases Cited
- Stinson, United States v., 647 F.3d 1196 (9th Cir. 2011) (plain-error review for read-back admonition; prejudice analysis)
- Newhoff, United States v., 627 F.3d 1163 (9th Cir. 2010) (read-back admonition standard)
- Guzman-Mata, United States v., 579 F.3d 1065 (9th Cir. 2009) (double-counting review and sentencing)
- Melendrez v. United States, 389 F.3d 829 (9th Cir. 2004) (definition of means of identification vs. identification documents)
- Verdin, United States v., 243 F.3d 1174 (9th Cir. 2001) (3C1.1 obstruction related to closely related offense)
- Harrison, United States v., 585 F.3d 1155 (9th Cir. 2009) (support for willful false testimony finding)
- Garro, United States v., 517 F.3d 1163 (9th Cir. 2008) (support for obstruction finding)
- Rosas, United States v., 615 F.3d 1058 (9th Cir. 2010) (upholding § 3C1.1 in presence of related conduct)