# United States v. Brown

> Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · May 11, 2004 · 96 F. App'x 771

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8424449

## Case

- **Full name:** United States v. Michael BROWN
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
- **Decided:** May 11, 2004
- **Citations:** 96 F. App'x 771
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion of the court
- **Judges:** Cabranes, Feinberg, Meskill
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8424449

## Opinion text

SUMMARY ORDER
In this sentencing-only appeal, defendant Michael Brown challenges the District Court’s imposition of a two-level enhancement for obstruction of justice under United States Sentencing Guidelines (“U.S.S.G.”) § 3C1.1. * The District Court entered its findings pursuant to this Court’s remand instruction that the sentencing enhancement could not be applied unless the District Court made specific factual findings that warranted the enhancement, see United States v. Brown, 321 F.3d 347 (2d Cir.2003). Defendant contends that the District Court’s findings do not support imposition of the enhancement.
Having reviewed the record and considered the arguments of the parties, we conclude that the District Court did not err in imposing the obstruction-of-justice enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1, see, e.g., United States v. Carty, 264 F.3d 191, 194-96 (2d Cir.2001), and the judgment of the District Court is hereby AFFIRMED.
U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1 provides for a two-step increase in a defendant’s offense level if the defendant "willfully obstructed or impeded, or attempted to obstruct or impede, the administration of justice during the investigation, prosecution, or sentencing of the instant offense.”

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8424449. Public record. Not legal advice.