
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Daniel HALL, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 07-10920
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    April 23, 2008.
    Camille Elizabeth Sparks, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Andrew Ottaway, Ottaway Law Office, Granbury, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Daniel Hall appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction for possession with the intent to distribute more than 50 grams of methamphetamine. Hall argues that the district court increased his offense level under U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1 and denied him a reduction for acceptance of responsibility based on an erroneous finding that he obstructed justice by committing perjury at the sentencing hearing.

Because the recent Supreme Court decisions of Gall v. United States, — U.S. —, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007), Rita v. United States, — U.S. —, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007), and Kimbrough v. United States, — U.S. —, 128 S.Ct. 558, 169 L.Ed.2d 481 (2007), did not alter this court’s review of the district court’s construction of the Guidelines or findings of fact, see United States v. Cisneros—Gutierrez, 517 F.3d 751, 764-65 (5th Cir.2008), the district court’s interpretation and application of the sentencing guidelines are reviewed de novo, and its factual findings are reviewed for clear error. United States v. Juarez Duarte, 513 F.3d 204, 208 (5th Cir.2008) (per curiam) (post-Gall and Kimbrough).

The district court did not clearly err in finding that Hall committed pei’jury regarding the amount of methamphetamine attributable to him because the finding is supported by the testimony of Danny Paine and the information contained in the PSR. Moreover, the district court’s finding that Hall intentionally provided false testimony on a material issue with the intent to persuade the court to lower his sentence provided the requisite elements of a perjury determination and warranted application of the enhancement under § 3C1.1 and a denial of acceptance of responsibility. See United States v. Dunnigan, 507 U.S. 87, 94-95, 113 S.Ct. 1111, 122 L.Ed.2d 445 (1993).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     