With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". at 507-09; Gobbi, 471 F.3d at 314-15; United States v. Owens, 308 F.3d 791, 794-95 (7th Cir.2002); United States v. Johnson, 302 F.3d 139, 153-54 (3d Cir.2002); United States v. Haas, 171 F.3d 259, 268 (5th Cir.1999); Godinez, 110 F.3d at 456-57; Boggi, 74 F.3d at 478-79; Hickok, 77 F.3d at 1006-09; United States v. Weitzenhoff, 35 F.3d 1275, 1292 (9th Cir.1993); see also United States v. Lipscomb, 284 Fed.Appx. 924 (3d Cir.2008) (same). Circuit court decisions applying the same principles, but reversing and remanding Section 3C1.1 perjury enhancements based upon inadequate factual findings, include the following. See, e.g., Fiorelli, 133 F.3d at 220-25; Catano-Alzate, 62 F.3d at 42-43; United States v. Hilliard, 31 F.3d 1509, 1518-21 (10th Cir.1994); see also Miller, 527 F.3d at 74-81 (<HOLDING>); United States v. Friedman, 998 F.2d 53, 57-58

A: holding that the testimony of an obligor as to amount of payments was sufficient evidence to support findings of actual support paid
B: holding the trial court is not required to make specific findings of fact on the record for each wham factor if the record contains sufficient evidentiary support for the finding of lack of good cause
C: holding that record did not support findings of willful falsity applying rule of fundamental ambiguity or of materiality
D: holding right to be fundamental
C.