When a defendant objects to a sentencing enhancement for obstruction of justice based on perjury, must the court make specific findings on the elements of perjury?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED I. Sentencing Guideline §3C1.1 provides a 2-level enhancement for obstruction of justice and applies if a defendant testifies untruthfully about a material fact at trial. In United States v. Dunnigan, 507 U.S. 87 (1993), this Court determined that this obstruction of justice enhancement could be applied constitutionally to a defendant who exercises their right to testify, with one caveat: “if a defendant objects to a sentence enhancement resulting from her trial testimony, a district court must review the evidence and make independent findings necessary to establish a willful impediment to, or obstruction of justice, or an attempt to do the same, under the perjury definition we have set out.” Accordingly, for nearly 30 years, controlling precedent has been clear: if a defendant objects to the application of the §3C1.1 enhancement based on allegations of perjury, the sentencing court “must make findings to support all the elements of a perjury violation in the specific case”, i.e., the court must find that the defendant gave “false testimony concerning a material matter with the willful intent to provide false testimony, rather than as a result of confusion, mistake, or faulty memory.” A. When, as here, a defendant (1) denies committing perjury, (2) objects to the application of the § C1.1 enhancement and (3) presents evidence corroborating his trial testimony, does he preserve his objection to the 2-level obstruction of justice enhancement when the trial court fails to make the findings required by Dunnigan, supra? Ot is the Tenth Circuit correct when it holds that a defendant forfeits his challenge to the § 3C1.1 enhancement if he does not expressly object to the district court’s findings as inadequate? B. Did the Tenth Circuit abuse its discretion when it sva sponte ruled the defendant had forfeited any objection to the §3C1.1 enhancement based on inadequate judicial findings? Ul. Did the Tenth Circuit misapply plain error review to three clearly erroneous jury instructions, one that repeatedly told the jurors, including the alternate juror, that they could consider and discuss the evidence during the trial and before the case was submitted, and two instructions that omitted the requisite mens trea for constructive possession and for aider and abettor liability in a way that allowed the jury to convict Mr. Gomez-Castto, even if it believed his exculpatory testimony? |