was a member of the drug conspiracy. Thus, as we have previously held, a district court does not clearly err in declining to grant a dealer a downward adjustment for "minor participation” because a "seller” possesses “a central position in a drug distribution conspiracy.” United States v. Brooks, 957 F.2d 1138, 1149 (4th Cir.1992). Second, Green contends that the district court erred in granting her a two-level upward adjustment for obstruction of justice. We reject Green's argument because there was ample evidence from which the district court concluded that Green provided “materially false information” to the jury that went far beyond a mere denial of guilt. United States v. Romulus, 949 F.2d 713, 717 (4th Cir.1991); see also United States v. Gormley, 201 F.3d 290, 294 (4th Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>). 4 . In contrast, the government argues, as it
holding that district court did not clearly err in giving twolevel enhancement for similar conduct holding that trial court did not err holding that the district court did not err in imposing an obstruction of justice enhancement where defendants false statements went beyond merely denying his guilt holding district court did not err in admitting reports that were merely cumulative of evidence already in the record holding defendants false exculpatory statements admissible to show consciousness of guilt