was insufficient to support a finding of willful falsity and that the District Court improperly drew inferences against him because he did not testify to his lack of willfulness. He asserts also that the Court improperly threatened him with an additional two-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1, if he testified during the trial and the District Court found that defendant’s explanation of his declaration was intentionally false. We reject the defendant’s contentions. The evidence was sufficient to support the Court’s findings. Nor did the Court rely improperly on the defendant’s decision not to testify. Finally, a district court is entitled to inform a defendant of the possible consequences of presenting false testimony. See United States v. Desimone, 119 F.3d 217, 230 (2d Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>). The Supreme Court has said that, “a
holding that a district court may not impose a sentencing enhancement based on conduct of which the jury acquitted the defendant holding that the defendants substantial rights were not affected by a sentencing guidelines enhancement even in the absence of a specific finding by the district court because the evidence amply supported the enhancement holding that the court had no duty to warn defendants about the possibility of deportation as a collateral consequence of conviction holding that a sentencing court may warn a defendant of the possibility of a sentence enhancement holding that the actual innocence exception applies to a sentencing enhancement in a noncapital sentence