UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Jose CRUZ, aka Chili, DefendantAppellant, Joel Urena, aka Boss, Mark David, aka Tone, Calvin Bailey, aka Tank, Laquay Cokley, aka Quay, Wayne Custis, aka Weezy, Melvin Dias, aka Flint, Tremaine Garrison, aka Triggermain, Daiquan Henderson, aka Wee Wee, Michael Henderson, aka Beanz, aka Supa, Leanell Hines, aka Kip, Dawone Hodges, aka Killat, Eric Lockhart, aka Sleazy, Darryl McFadden, aka Squeeze, Harry Quintana-Cruz, aka Little Gotti, John Slade, aka Slide Off, Akeem Smith, aka P.C., Paul Stinson, aka Salute, Joshua Vilian, aka Ross, Gregory Williams, aka G-Dubb, Defendants, 626 F. App'x 333

SUMMARY ORDER Defendant-Appellant Jose Cruz appeals from an April 9, 2014 judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Ramos, /.), which sentenced him to 188 months’ imprisonment following his guilty plea to one count of conspiracy to distribute cocaine in violation of.21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(b)(1)(B). In a counseled brief, Cruz challenges the district court’s application of a two-level enhancement for obstruction of justice pursuant to

Section 3C1.1 of the United States Sentencing Guidelines Manual (“Guidelines”). In a pro se supplemental brief, Cruz further argues that the district court erred by (1) refusing to apply a three-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility, and (2) applying a two-level enhancement for use of a weapon in the commission of a crime involving narcotics. For the reasons stated below, we AFFIRM the decisions of the district court regarding denial of the acceptance-of-responsibility credit and application of the weapons enhancement.

We hold, however, that the district court erred in applying the obstruction-of-justice enhancement, and thus we VACATE Cruz’s sentence and REMAND for resentencing. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts, procedural history, and issues on appeal. We review the district court’s

interpretation of the Sentencing Guidelines de novo, but review any factual findings for clear error. United States v. Fiore, 381 F.3d 89, 92 (2d Cir.2004).

Section 3C1.1 of the Guidelines instructs the district court to increase the defendant’s offense level by two levels if “(1) the defendant willfully obstructed or impeded, or attempted to obstruct or impede, the administration of justice with respect to the investigation, prosecution, or sentencing of the instant offense of conviction, and (2) the obstructive conduct related to (

A) the defendant’s offense of conviction and any relevant conduct; or (

B) a closely related offense.” U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1. Thus, the obstruction-of-justice enhancement applies only if the obstructive conduct related either to “the defendant’s offense of conviction” or to “a closely related offense.” Id.; see also United States v. Byors, 586 F.3d 222, 227 (2d Cir.2009) (interpreting this provision to create a “nexus element”); cf. United States v. Zagari, 111 F.3d 307, 329 (2d Cir.1997) (discussing application of obstruction-of-justice enhancement based on perjured testimony given in a “related proceeding”).

Here, the district court found that Cruz willfully obstructed justice by falsely testifying at the trial of Steven Knowles, the leader of a rival gang, that he had previously pleaded guilty to selling drugs but not to participating in a narcotics conspiracy. However, the district court did not make a finding that the Knowles prosecution was “closely related” to Cruz’s offense of conviction, and indeed, the record suggests that it was not.

The two trials involved different defendants and different offenses, leading the government to concede that they were not “within the technical definition of the term ‘related case.’ ” App. 45. We conclude that, in the absence of any finding that Cruz’s obstructive conduct related to a “closely related offense,” the district court’s application of the obstruction-of-justice enhancement was in error. Furthermore, the government does not argue that such error was harmless, and the record does not “indicate! ] clearly that the district court would have imposed the same sentence in any event.” United States v.

Jass, 569 F.3d 47, 68 (2d Cir.2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). Accordingly, we vacate Cruz’s sentence and remand for resentencing. In his pro se supplemental brief, Cruz challenges the district court’s refusal to apply a three-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility.

The Guidelines permit the court to decrease a defendant’s offense level by up to three levels where “the defendant clearly demonstrates acceptance of responsibility for his offense.” U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(a). “The district court may deny a reduction under § 3E1.1 of the Guidelines based on a credibility determination that the defendant has not accepted responsibility for the offense of conviction.” United States v. Reyes, 9 F.3d 275, 280 (2d Cir.1993). In addition, Application note 5 to

Section 3E1.1 states: “The sentencing judge is in a unique position .to evaluate a defendant’s acceptance of responsibility. For this reason, the determination of the sentencing judge is entitled to great deference on review.” U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1 n. 5. Here, the district court concluded that Cruz was not entitled to “get the benefit of acceptance of responsibility by telling [it] one thing under oath and then taking the same oath and telling [the judge in the other proceeding] exactly the opposite.” App. 70.

We find that the sentencing court’s determination was fully supported by the facts before it regarding Cruz’s false testimony in the separate judicial proceedings. Cruz also argues, for the first time, that the district court’s application of the two-level weapons enhancement was in error. The Guidelines permit a two-level enhancement “[i]f a dangerous weapon (including a firearm) was possessed” in relation to a narcotics crime. U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b). We review Cruz’s contention under the highly deferential plain-error standard. See United States v. Doe, 741 F.3d 359, 364 (2d Cir.2013).

It fails for at least two reasons. First, as the government correctly notes, Cruz waived the right to bring this claim when he expressly consented to the application of a two-level weapons enhancement in his written plea agreement. Second, the uncontested facts in the presentence report provided a sufficient basis for the district court to conclude that Cruz possessed a weapon in furtherance of the charged narcotics conspiracy. Accordingly, we affirm the application of this enhancement. • We have considered Cruz’s remaining arguments on these challenges and find them to be without merit.

For the reasons stated herein, the district court’s decisions regarding the aeceptance-of-re-sponsibility reduction and the weapons enhancement are AFFIRMED. Because we conclude that the district court’s application of the obstruction-of-justice enhancement was in error, we VACATE Cruz’s sentence and REMAND for resen-tencing in accordance with the foregoing.