Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-03265/USCOURTS-ca8-06-03265-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Mario Rosas
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Sandra Day O’Connor, Associate Justice (Ret.), Supreme Court

of the United States, sitting by designation.

2

The Honorable Mark W. Bennett, then Chief Judge, United States District

Court for the Northern District of Iowa. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-3265

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Northern District of Iowa.

Mario Rosas, *

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: February 13, 2007

Filed: May 16, 2007

___________

Before O’CONNOR, Associate Justice (Ret.),1

 WOLLMAN, and SMITH, Circuit

Judges.

___________

WOLLMAN, Circuit Judge.

Mario Rosas was convicted of conspiring to distribute methamphetamine and

possessing methamphetamine with the intent to distribute, violations of 21 U.S.C. §§

841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(A), and 846. The district court2

 imposed concurrent sentences

of 360 months’ imprisonment and five years’ supervised release for each offense.

Appellate Case: 06-3265 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/16/2007 Entry ID: 3309976
-2-

Rosas appeals from his sentence, contending that the district court erred in applying

a three-level aggravating role enhancement under United States Sentencing Guidelines

(U.S.S.G.) § 3B1.1(b) (2006). We affirm.

I.

Rosas was arrested in September 2005 after participating in a controlled buy

during which he sold methamphetamine to Juan Delaluz (hereinafter “Juan”), who was

acting as a confidential informant. Officers subsequently searched Rosas’s residence

and a separate apartment that was rented in Rosas’s name. During the search of the

apartment, officers found items associated with the operation of a drug storehouse and

“cut lab.” These items included mixing and cutting agents, cooking equipment, drug

packaging materials, scales, and a cardboard box that was sealed with foam insulation

and lined with coffee grounds – presumably to prevent illegal narcotics from being

detected. Officers also found approximately one and one-half pounds of crystal

methamphetamine in the apartment, nearly one pound of which was determined to be

98% pure. Tri-State Drug Task Force Officer Dane Wagner testified that the

apartment appeared to be used for the sole purpose of storing and mixing

methamphetamine, as it contained no furniture, clothing, or food. Wagner also stated

that the operation was extensive and fairly well organized.

Juan testified that Rosas had previously fronted five or six one-half ounce

quantities of methamphetamine to him for sale. Juan further stated that he and his

brother, Nicomedis Delaluz (hereinafter “Nicomedis”), had made two trips to

California. On their second trip, they brought back a pound of methamphetamine,

purchased with funds provided by Rosas, which Juan delivered to Rosas. According

to Juan, Nicomedis worked for Rosas delivering drugs from California. 

Nicomedis testified that he had been hired by Rosas to make at least five trips

to California to pick up methamphetamine and bring it back to Iowa. According to

Appellate Case: 06-3265 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/16/2007 Entry ID: 3309976
-3-

Nicomedis, approximately two pounds of methamphetamine were brought back on

each trip. Nicomedis further stated that Rosas initiated the trips, that the two were not

partners, and that he had helped package drugs for Rosas. 

Following Rosas’s conviction, the district court, based on the evidence

recounted above, found him to be a supervisor of an otherwise extensive criminal

activity and imposed a three-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(b). 

II.

A defendant’s offense level may be increased by three levels if he “was a

manager or supervisor . . . and the criminal activity involved five or more participants

or was otherwise extensive . . . .” U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(b). Rosas contends that the

district court erred in imposing the three-level enhancement because he was not a

manager or supervisor and the drug operation was not otherwise extensive. We

review for clear error the district court’s factual findings underlying the imposition of

a sentencing enhancement based on the defendant’s role in the offense. United States

v. Carpenter, 422 F.3d 738, 748 (8th Cir. 2005), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 1115 (2006).

“We construe the terms ‘manager’ or ‘supervisor’ broadly under U.S.S.G. §

3B1.1.” United States v. Erhart, 415 F.3d 965, 973 (8th Cir. 2005), cert. denied, 126

S. Ct. 1181 (2006). For purposes of determining whether a defendant played a

managerial or supervisory role in an offense, application note four to § 3B1.1 directs

the sentencing court to consider such factors as:

the exercise of decision making authority, the nature of participation in

the commission of the offense, the recruitment of accomplices, the

claimed right to a larger share of the fruits of the crime, the degree of

participation in planning or organizing the offense, the nature and scope

of the illegal activity, and the degree of control and authority exercised

over others. 

Appellate Case: 06-3265 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/16/2007 Entry ID: 3309976
-4-

The evidence shows that Rosas hired and directed Nicomedis to make at least

five trips to California to acquire methamphetamine, that Nicomedis was not

considered a partner in the operation, and that Nicomedis helped package drugs for

Rosas. In addition, Rosas supplied the money for the methamphetamine that Juan and

Nicomedis had obtained from California and fronted methamphetamine to Juan for

sale. This evidence supports a finding that Rosas was a manager or supervisor of the

criminal activity, for it shows that he not only arranged, directed, and organized the

operation, including the trips to California, but that he also enlisted the help of both

Nicomedis and Juan. See United States v. Mendoza, 341 F.3d 687, 694 (8th Cir.

2003) (upholding the imposition of a sentencing enhancement under § 3B1.1 when the

defendant, among other things, hired an individual to transport methamphetamine

from California to Missouri); Erhart, 415 F.3d at 973 (“[T]he simple fact that a

defendant recruits new members into a conspiracy supports a finding of the defendant

being a manager or supervisor.”). Furthermore, Rosas was not required to be in

complete control of either Nicomedis or Juan to be considered a manager or

supervisor, as Rosas asserts. See United States v. Pitts, 173 F.3d 677, 681-82 (8th Cir.

1999) (“The fact that appellant did not control his co-conspirator’s every move does

not defeat the finding that he played a leadership role in the offense.”). The district

court therefore did not err in finding Rosas to be a manager or supervisor of the

criminal activity.

The number of persons involved in the operation is of relevance in determining

whether the organization is otherwise extensive. United States v. Brockman, 183 F.3d

891, 900 (8th Cir. 1999); U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1, cmt. n.3. As we have recognized,

however, other factors, such as “the nature and complexity of the operation and its

geographical reach,” United States v. Vasquez-Rubio, 296 F.3d 726, 729 n.3 (8th Cir.

2002), as well as “the amount of loss caused by the offense,” Brockman, 183 F.3d at

900, may also be considered. 

Appellate Case: 06-3265 Page: 4 Date Filed: 05/16/2007 Entry ID: 3309976
-5-

The record shows that Rosas occupied a separate apartment for the sole purpose

of operating a drug storehouse and cut lab. In this apartment, as set forth above,

officers found mixing and cutting agents, cooking equipment, drug packaging

materials, scales, a cardboard box that was set up in a way to prevent the detection of

illegal narcotics, and a significant amount of high purity methamphetamine. Based

on this evidence, the relative infrequency of finding such an operation, and the volume

of high purity methamphetamine found, Officer Wagner classified Rosas’s operation

as an extensive and fairly well organized one. In addition to this evidence, the record

also establishes that Rosas coordinated at least five cross-country trips to California

to pick up methamphetamine and that Nicomedis and Juan had also been involved in

various aspects of the operation. Given this evidence, we cannot say that the district

court erred when it found Rosas’s operation to be otherwise extensive. 

The judgment is affirmed.

_____________________________

Appellate Case: 06-3265 Page: 5 Date Filed: 05/16/2007 Entry ID: 3309976