or not charged as a conspiracy), all reasonably foreseeable acts and omissions of others in furtherance of the jointly undertaken criminal activity.” U.S.S.G. § lB1.3(a)(l)(B). Here, Mercado lied about his co-defendant’s knowledge of the drugs in the car and lied about his co-defendant’s involvement in picking up the drugs in Los An-geles. The act of picking up the drugs in Los Angeles is an act in furtherance of the jointly undertaken criminal activity. Moreover, a defendant’s lie about the involvement of a co-conspirator hinders investigators from determining all acts committed in furtherance of the jointly undertaken criminal activity. See United States v. Patron-Montano, 223 F.3d 1184, 1190 (10th Cir.2000); see also United States v. Murray, 65 F.3d 1161, 1165-66 (4th Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>). Thus, Mercado’s perjury constituted the false
holding that lesser sentence imposed on codefendant did not constitute abuse of discretion where defendant was sentenced within the statutory and guideline range and where codefendant received reduction for acceptance of responsibility and for being a minimal participant holding that there was no miscarriage of justice where the defendant claimed that the government abused its discretion by refusing to request a threelevel downward adjustment for acceptance of responsibility holding that adjustment for acceptance of responsibility is appropriate where the district court rebuffed a defendants attempts to plead guilty holding that a defendant who denied involvement of codefendant during codefendants trial had intentionally misled law enforcement officers and should not receive a downward adjustment for acceptance of responsibility holding that a defendant should not receive an acceptance of responsibility adjustment when there is contradicting obstructive conduct