## Facts

- Police responded to a “man with a gun” report and observed Oscar Rash remove a firearm from his waistband and drop it.
- Rash, a convicted felon, was charged with unlawful possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).
- Rash told officers and later testified at trial that the gun belonged to his girlfriend and that he only carried it to return it because he could not keep a gun in his home as a felon.
- The government introduced surveillance video from a gun store showing Rash twice accompanying his girlfriend and assisting with the gun’s purchase.
- A jury convicted Rash of being a felon in possession of a firearm.
- Rash initially received an enhanced sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e), but after *Johnson v. United States* invalidated the residual clause, he was resentenced without the ACCA enhancement.
- At resentencing, the district court applied a two-level obstruction-of-justice enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1 based on Rash’s trial testimony, raising the advisory range from 77–96 months to 95–115 months and imposing 100 months.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court clearly erred in applying U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1 based on Rash’s trial testimony on the ground that his false statements were “material,” even though he admitted possessing the firearm.

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit affirmed the sentence.
- The court upheld the § 3C1.1 enhancement, concluding the district court did not clearly err in finding Rash’s testimony was willfully false and materially obstructive.
- The court held Rash’s false narrative was material because, if believed, it could have influenced the jury’s decision to acquit, including by encouraging jury nullification.

## Legal Principles

- U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1 applies when a defendant willfully obstructs or attempts to obstruct the administration of justice in connection with the investigation, prosecution, or sentencing of the offense of conviction, and the conduct is material.
- A statement is “material” for § 3C1.1 if, if believed, it could influence the outcome; materiality is not limited to statements addressing statutory elements.
- Knowingly false trial testimony that minimizes culpability and is aimed at misleading the factfinder can support an obstruction enhancement, even where the defendant concedes an element such as possession.

## Conclusion

The Seventh Circuit held that a defendant’s false trial testimony may be material under U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1 when it could affect the verdict by inducing an acquittal, including through nullification, and it affirmed Rash’s obstruction-enhanced resentencing.


United States v. Rash, 840 F.3d 462 (7th Cir. 2016)