Michael Anthony Prozer, III appeals the inclusion of a 2-level obstruction of justice enhancement to the calculation of his base-offense level pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1 of the Sentencing Guidelines. The enhancement was administered when Prozer was found to have violated the terms of his bond and subsequently lied to the magistrate judge presiding over his bond-revocation hearing. At sentencing, the Government requested and the district court granted the 2-level enhancement after Prozer pled guilty to seven separate counts relating to wire, mail, and bank fraud. On appeal, Prozer argues § 3C1.1 is inapplicable to a bond revocation hearing where the grounds for revocation derive from a separate offense. After review, 1 we affirm Prozer’s sentence.

The district court did not err in applying Prozer’s 2-level obstruction enhancement for lying to the magistrate judge presiding over his hearing. We have held that giv *845 ing materially 2 false information at a bond hearing is sufficient to warrant an obstruction enhancement. See United States v. Doe, 661 F.3d 550 (11th Cir. 2011), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 132 S.Ct. 1648, 182 L.Ed.2d 242 (2012). Further, the commentary to § 3C1.1 states an obstruction enhancement applies when a defendant provides “materially false information to a ... magistrate judge.” U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1 cmt. n. 4(F). Prozer’s argument that the obstruction enhancement should not apply because his lies are wholly unrelated to his offense fails. The bond revocation hearing would have been impossible without Prozer first committing wire, mail, and bank fraud. Further, in fashioning § 3C1.1, the Sentencing Commission intended the provision to encompass any obstruction during the prosecution of the offense. See U.S.S.G. supp. to app. C, Amend. 693 (2006); see also Doe, 661 F.3d at 566.

Finally, Prozer argues the district court’s failure to make specific findings of fact regarding the reasoning for his obstruction enhancement must result in the reversal of the enhancement. This argument also fails. It is true the district court “should note specifically what each defendant did, why that conduct warrants the enhancement, and, if applicable, how that conduct actually hindered the investigation or prosecution of the offense.” United States v. Alpert, 28 F.3d 1104, 1108 (11th Cir. 1994) (en banc). However, where the record visibly reflects the basis for the enhancement and supports it, 3 the obstruction enhancement will stand. United States v. Taylor, 88 F.3d 938, 944 (11th Cir. 1996). The record reveals Prozer lied at his bond revocation hearing and the district court had sufficient reason to grant the Government’s request for a 2-level obstruction enhancement. Thus, Prozer’s sentence is affirmed.

AFFIRMED.