SUMMARY ORDER

Defendant Luis Valderrama appeals from a judgment of conviction entered by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Korman, J.) for conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 and 841(b)(l)(B)(ii)(II), and possession with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(l)(B)(ii)(II). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts, procedural history, and issues presented on appeal.

Valderrama argues that the district court erred by imposing a two-level enhancement for obstruction of justice under § 3C1.1 of the United States Sentencing Guidelines. Valderrama’s presentencing report (“PSR”) recommended the enhancement on the ground that Valderrama had perjured himself at his trial when he testified, inter alia, that (1) he was entrapped by a confidential informant and did not initiate the drug transaction for which he was being tried,(2) he was never involved in prior drug transactions, and (3) he did not know where or how the supplier got his drugs. At trial, the government introduced a recorded conversation between *71 Valderrama and the confidential informant in which Valderrama discussed other drug deals he completed, bragged about the amount of cocaine his supplier could procure, and said that his supplier got his drugs by parcel service from Puerto Rico. Valderrama tried to explain away the recorded statements by claiming that he was trying to impress the confidential informant so that he could broker more drug transactions with the informant. The district court concluded that Valderrama had perjured himself, expressly adopted the PSR’s finding, and applied the two-level enhancement.

The district court properly concluded that Valderrama committed perjury. See United States v. Dunnigan, 507 U.S. 87, 94, 113 S.Ct. 1111, 122 L.Ed.2d 445 (1993). When a defendant objects at sentencing to the perjury enhancement, a district court should review the evidence and make findings “necessary to establish a willful impediment to or obstruction of justice.” Id. at 95, 113 S.Ct. 1111. The district court satisfied this obligation by explicitly adopting the PSR’s findings of perjury. See United States v. Johns, 324 F.3d 94, 97-98 (2d Cir. 2003).

Finding no merit in defendants’ remaining arguments, we hereby AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.