United States v. McKinney

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-31021
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
LEO MCKINNEY,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Louisiana
USDC No. 98-CR-20-ALL
--------------------
June 7, 2000
Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Leo McKinney appeals from the judgment entered after a jury
found him guilty of two counts of distribution of cocaine base.
McKinney argues that the district court erred by enhancing
his sentence two offense levels pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1 for
obstruction of justice based on false testimony he gave at trial.
Because he did not object to this enhancement in the district
court, we review for plain error only. See United States v.
Huerta, 182 F.3d 361, 366 (5th Cir. 1999), cert. denied, 120
S. Ct. 1238 (2000). In light of the corroborated trial testimony

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 98-31021
-2-
of Montague Washington, which flatly contradicted McKinney’s
testimony, we perceive no error--plain or otherwise--in the
district court’s imposition of § 3C1.1's two-level enhancement.
See United States v. Laury, 985 F.2d 1293, 1308-09 (5th Cir.
1993). Furthermore, despite McKinney’s pleas, we are not free to
adopt a more forgiving standard governing the § 3C1.1 enhancement
for perjury at trial. See United States v. Gourley, 168 F.3d
165, 171 n.10 (5th Cir.) (noting that we are bound by the
decisions of previous panels), cert. denied, 120 S. Ct. 72
(1999).
McKinney argues that the district court erred at sentencing
in approving the presentence report’s (i) computation of the drug
quantity involved in his offense and (ii) imposition of a two-
level adjustment pursuant to § 2D1.1(b)(1) for possession of a
firearm. In imposing these sentencing enhancements, the district
court properly relied on testimony it had heard at trial. See
United States v. Hare, 150 F.3d 419, 425 (5th Cir. 1998).
McKinney has not shown that the court’s reliance on this
testimony was clear error. See id.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --