United States v. Rosario, 988 F.3d 630

Ivan Rosario was tried on firearms, heroin-conspiracy, and obstruction counts; the jury convicted him of obstruction for destruction of evidence, acquitted on one obstruction/witness-tampering count, and deadlocked on the narcotics count.
Government presented evidence that Rosario coerced his child's mother and his own mother to destroy a mobile phone that could have been used against him in the drug case.
Rosario testified that he had asked the child’s mother to destroy the phone to hide intimate recordings from his wife, not to conceal incriminating evidence; he denied ordering destruction to obstruct the drug investigation.
At sentencing the district court applied a two-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1 for perjury based on trial testimony, citing that Rosario enlisted others to destroy evidence to evade prosecution.
Rosario objected, arguing the court failed to make the specific factual findings required by United States v. Dunnigan before imposing the enhancement.
The Second Circuit held the district court did not make the required Dunnigan findings (identifying false statements, willfulness, materiality) and remanded in part for the district court to make those findings at sentencing; if the enhancement is not justified, resentencing is required.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court made the Dunnigan-required findings before applying § 3C1.1	District court’s sentencing statements (and Rule 29 denial) show Rosario lied; enhancement proper	District court failed to identify the specific false statements or find willfulness and materiality as Dunnigan requires	Court: Findings were insufficient; remand for the district court to make explicit Dunnigan findings at sentencing
Whether a Rule 29 denial or general sentencing remark can substitute for explicit Dunnigan findings	Rule 29 order indicating jury could discredit Rosario’s testimony suffices	Rule 29 context asks only whether any rational factfinder could discredit testimony, not whether perjury elements are met; findings must be made at sentencing	Court: Rule 29 denial and general remarks are insufficient; district court must make findings at sentencing

United States v. Dunnigan, 507 U.S. 87 (1993) (trial testimony-based enhancement requires district court to review evidence and make independent findings)
United States v. Ben-Shimon, 249 F.3d 98 (2d Cir. 2001) (district court must reference statements on which perjury finding is grounded)
United States v. Catano-Alzate, 62 F.3d 41 (2d Cir. 1995) (conclusory credibility statements do not satisfy Dunnigan)
United States v. Williams, 79 F.3d 334 (2d Cir. 1996) (general finding that defendant obstructed justice is inadequate without perjury element findings)
United States v. Thompson, 808 F.3d 190 (2d Cir. 2015) (relying on PSR characterizations without explicit district-court findings is insufficient)
Rock v. Arkansas, 483 U.S. 44 (1987) (constitutional right to testify implicated by testimony-based sentence enhancements)