UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

______________________________

No. 01-10197 Summary Calendar ______________________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

VERSUS

CLAYTON FIDEL MANNING,

Defendant-Appellant.

___________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court For the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 1:99-CR-3-1 ___________________________________________________ October 19, 2001

Before JOLLY, PARKER, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Clayton Fidel Manning appeals his convictions for possessing

with the intent to distribute marijuana and conspiring to

distribute, and to possess with the intent to distribute, over 50

* 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 R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.

1 kilograms of marijuana. Manning asserts that the district court

erred in adjusting his sentence for obstruction of justice pursuant

to U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1 because the court’s finding that he committed

perjury at trial was clearly erroneous.

Manning’s appeal of the obstruction-of-justice enhancement is

without merit for two reasons. First, the enhancement is

independently based upon the district court’s finding that Manning

attempted to escape from pretrial custody on more than one

occasion. Because Manning has not challenged this finding, he has

waived any challenge to the obstruction-of-justice enhancement.

United States v. Valdiosera-Godinez,

(5th Cir.

1991). Second, the district court did not commit clear error in

determining that Manning committed perjury.

Section 3C1.1 of the United States Sentencing Guidelines

instructs the district court to enhance a defendant's offense level

by two points "[i]f the defendant willfully impeded or obstructed,

or attempted to impede or obstruct the administration of justice

during the investigation, prosecution, or sentencing of the instant

offense." The Commentary specifically lists "committing,

suborning, or attempting to suborn perjury" as examples of conduct

to which the enhancement applies. U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1, comment n.

4(b). A district court's factual determination that a defendant

has obstructed justice under section 3C1.1 is reviewed for clear

error. United States v. Laury,

, 1305 (5th Cir.

2 1993).

After reviewing the record, we conclude that the district

court properly reviewed the evidence and made the findings

necessary to establish perjury. The district court specified the

portions of Manning’s testimony which were false, found that the

false testimony was given willfully and deliberately, and found

that the false testimony was relevant and material to the issue of

guilt or innocence. See United States v. Dunnigan,

(1993) (holding that a witness testifying under oath commits

perjury if he gives 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). Based upon the

convincing evidence presented by the government at trial concerning

Manning’s involvement in the marijuana distribution conspiracy, the

district court did not clearly err in determining that Manning

committed perjury during his testimony.

AFFIRMED.

3 4