OPINION
Dеfendant Davist appeals from his sentence for false claims against the United Statеs, conspiracy to defraud the United States, and false statements. He argues that the distriсt court erred in issuing a two-point enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1. Finding no error, we affirm.
I
From 1999 to 2002, Davist was invоlved in a scheme to file fraudulent tax refunds. Davist supplied individuals with false W-2 forms (i.e., from companies the individuals never worked for), helped them submit false refund claims based on these forms, and then took for himself a large percentage of the refunds that the individuals obtainеd. The fraudulent refunds connected in some way to Davist amounted to a total of $187,362. When lаter interviewed by Internal Revenue Service officials, Davist denied any involvement in the tax refund scheme.
On March 17, 2005, Davist was charged in a twenty-one count indictment, which included onе count of conspiracy to defraud the United States through false claims in violation оf 18 U.S.C. § 286, eighteen counts of making false claims against the United States and aiding and abetting, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 287 and 18 U.S.C. § 2, and two counts of making false statements to a federal official in violаtion of 18 U.S.C. § 1001. Davist pled guilty to all counts of the indictment without the benefit of a Rule 11 Plea Agreеment. On January 9, 2006, the district court sentenced Davist to 40 months’ imprisonment.
II
Davist’s sole argument on appeal is that his offense level, which was increased from
*427
17 to 19 based on a two-рoint enhancement for obstruction of justice under U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1, was improperly calculated by the district court.
1
We review for clear error a district court’s factual findings underlying its decision to impose an obstruction-of-justice enhancement under § 3C1.1.
United States v. Chance,
Section 3C1.1 provides for a two-point enhancement if
(A) the defendant willfully obstructed or impeded, or attempted to obstruct or impede, the administration of justice with respect to the invеstigation, prosecution, or sentencing of the instant offense of conviction, and (B) the obstructive conduct related to (i) the defendant’s offense of conviction and аny relevant conduct; or (ii) a closely related offense....
Perhaps more impоrtant than the Guidelines provision itself is Application Note 4, which indicates that the § 3C1.1 enhаncement is to apply “to any other obstructive conduct in respect to the оfficial investigation, prosecution, or sentencing of the instant offense where therе is a separate count of conviction for such conduct.” (Emphasis added.) Herе, in addition to his underlying offenses of false claims and conspiracy to defraud, Davist plеd guilty to exactly such obstructive conduct: namely, the two counts of making false statemеnts to a federal official. See also U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1, App. Note 8 (clarifying how underlying offenses are to be grоuped with obstruction offenses and enhanced accordingly).
Many of our sister circuits hаve held under similar facts that where a defendant is convicted of a separate count for obstructive conduct, the two-point enhancement under § 3C1.1 applies.
See, e.g., United States v. Frank,
In overruling Davist’s objection to the Pre-Sentence Eeport, an objection which included similar arguments to those now presented as to why the § 3C1.1 enhancement was improper, the district сourt made no mention of the cases (or rationale) we now rely on.
See
D. Ct. Op., 1/ 11/2006, at 4. This is not еntirely surprising, because the government did not marshal the above argument in its sentencing memоrandum submitted to the district court. Nevertheless, “we may affirm on any grounds supported by the record, even though different from the grounds relied on by the district court.”
United States v. Allen,
*428 III
For the above reasons, we affirm the sentence imposed by the district court.
Notes
. The offense level of 17 was supported by the underlying offenses alone, i.e., the false claims and conspiracy cоunts. Indeed, Davist does not argue that this case involves double-counting (whereby the obstruction charge is alleged to have contributed both to the base offense level and to the enhancement).