Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-09-02585/USCOURTS-ca8-09-02585-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Zeuantray Verner Barry
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable William Jay Riley became Chief Judge of the United States

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit on April 1, 2010.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 09-2585

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Missouri.

Zeuantray Verner Barry, *

also known as Zoo, * [UNPUBLISHED] 

* 

Appellant. *

__________

Submitted: February 8, 2010

Filed: April 6, 2010

___________

Before RILEY,1

 Chief Judge, SMITH and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. 

___________

PER CURIAM.

Zeuantray Verner Barry pled guilty to (1) conspiracy to distribute and possess

with intent to distribute heroin, ecstasy, and marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C.

§§ 841(a)(1) and 846; (2) conspiracy to commit money laundering, in violation of 18

U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1)(A)(i) and (B)(i); and (3) money laundering, in violation of 18

U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1)(A)(i) and (a)(1)(B)(i). In his plea agreement, Barry reserved the

“right to appeal an adverse finding on his role in the offense.” He does so now.

Appellate Case: 09-2585 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/06/2010 Entry ID: 3651882
2

The Honorable Catherine D. Perry, now Chief Judge, United States District

Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. 

-2-

During sentencing, the district court2

 found Barry “was an organizer or leader

of a criminal activity that involved five or more participants or was otherwise

extensive,” and applied a four-level enhancement to Barry’s offense level pursuant to

United States Sentencing Guidelines (U.S.S.G. or Guidelines) § 3B1.1(a). The district

court then found Barry’s advisory Guidelines range was 168 to 210 months,

considered all of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, and sentenced Barry to 168 months

imprisonment. Barry appeals his sentence, claiming the district court erred by

(1) finding Barry was an organizer or leader in the conspiracy, and (2) failing to

consider unwarranted sentencing disparities. We affirm.

“On appeal, a district court’s sentence is reviewed for abuse of discretion.”

United States v. Mosby, 543 F.3d 438, 440 (8th Cir. 2008). Under U.S.S.G.

§ 3B1.1(a), a four-level sentence enhancement is appropriate “if the defendant was an

organizer or leader of a criminal activity that involved five or more participants or was

otherwise extensive.” United States v. Branch, 591 F.3d 602, 611 (8th Cir. 2009).

“The Government has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that

the aggravating role enhancement is warranted.” United States v. Garcia-Hernandez,

530 F.3d 657, 665 (8th Cir. 2008). “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. Rosas, 486 F.3d 374, 376 (8th Cir.

2007). We review de novo the legal application of the role guideline. See Branch,

591 F.3d at 611. 

Barry does not argue the conspiracy involved fewer than five people or was not

otherwise extensive. Instead, Barry argues he was a middleman directed by his

suppliers and was not an organizer or leader. During Barry’s sentencing hearing,

Appellate Case: 09-2585 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/06/2010 Entry ID: 3651882
-3-

James Echols testified that on approximately fifteen occasions, Barry paid Echols cash

to transport vehicles to, or pick up vehicles from, specific individuals. Barry

sometimes sent Echols with a large amount of cash which Echols exchanged for the

vehicles. Barry provided Echols with cash for his expenses and paid for Echols’s

transportation. Barry directed Echols to use specific methods of travel, such as train

or airline, and Barry instructed Echols to stay at specific hotels. The last vehicle

Echols transported for Barry was searched by the Drug Enforcement Administration

(DEA) and contained five kilograms of heroin. The DEA also conducted a search of

Echols’s personal vehicle, and located documentation of many occasions Echols

transported a vehicle at Barry’s direction. 

The government presented additional evidence Barry exercised control over

other people involved in the conspiracy. However, we need not discuss such other

evidence because the Guidelines merely require a showing that Barry controlled one

other participant for the enhancement to apply. See, e.g., United States v. SentyHaugen, 449 F.3d 862, 864 (8th Cir. 2006); U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1 cmt. n.2 (“To qualify

for an adjustment under this section, the defendant must have been the organizer,

leader, manager, or supervisor of one or more other participants.”). The stipulated

facts set forth in Barry’s plea agreement and several uncontested portions of Barry’s

presentence investigation report also support the district court’s finding Barry was an

organizer or leader. The district court did not err in enhancing Barry’s sentence for

his role in the offense.

Barry further contends “[t]he trial court erred in failing to recognize the

disparity in applying the leadership enhancement to Mr. Barry when his suppliers, and

the clear leaders in the conspiracy, did not receive similar enhancements.” The district

court recognized there was evidence Barry had three drug suppliers, but the court had

little other information as to the roles of these out-of-town suppliers in the offense.

The district court sentenced Barry according to the information the court had in the

record, noting not all suppliers are leaders or organizers, and if Barry’s suppliers had

Appellate Case: 09-2585 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/06/2010 Entry ID: 3651882
-4-

a more active role in the conspiracy, the government may be able to obtain more

evidence to convict the suppliers of further offenses. The district court found Barry

was “the main person here in St. Louis doing what he’s doing.” The district court

thoroughly considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, and after considering the

sentences of other defendants in this case, and other defendants with similar records,

concluded, “I do not believe there [are] any unwarranted sentencing disparities

[created] by this sentence.” See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(6). The district court did not

abuse its discretion in its sentencing determination.

We affirm Barry’s sentence.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 09-2585 Page: 4 Date Filed: 04/06/2010 Entry ID: 3651882