[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 14-10179

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 1:13-cr-20627-JIC-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

CORNELIUS OFFORD,

a.k.a. Head,

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

________________________

(September 5, 2014)

Before HULL, WILSON and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Case: 14-10179 Date Filed: 09/05/2014 Page: 1 of 7 
2

After pleading guilty, Cornelius Offord appeals his total 27-month sentence

for conspiracy to utter counterfeit United States obligations and uttering counterfeit 

United States obligations, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 371, 472. On appeal, 

Offord argues that the district court improperly applied a two-level aggravatingrole increase under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(c) because the government failed to prove

facts to support it. After review, we affirm.

I. STANDARD OF REVIEW

We review for clear error the district court’s findings of fact, as well as the 

district court’s determination that a defendant is subject to an aggravating-role 

increase under § 3B1.1(c). United States v. Jiminez, 224 F.3d 1243, 1250-51 

(11th Cir. 2000); United States v. Glover, 179 F.3d 1300, 1302 (11th Cir. 1999). 

Clear error review is deferential, and “we will not disturb a district court’s findings 

unless we are left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been 

committed.” United States v. Ghertler, 605 F.3d 1256, 1267 (11th Cir. 2010)

(quotation marks omitted). The district court’s “choice between two permissible 

views of the evidence” as to the defendant’s role in the offense will rarely 

constitute clear error “[s]o long as the basis of the trial court’s decision is 

supported by the record and does not involve a misapplication of a rule of law.” 

United States v. Stanley, 739 F.3d 633, 653 (11th Cir.), cert. denied sub nom., 

Case: 14-10179 Date Filed: 09/05/2014 Page: 2 of 7 
3

Harris v. United States, 134 S. Ct. 2317 (2014) (quotation marks omitted)

(involving a denial of a minor-role reduction under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2).

II. GENERAL PRINCIPLES FOR § 3B1.1 ROLE INCREASE

Under § 3B1.1, a defendant’s offense level is increased by four levels if he 

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

participants or was otherwise extensive.” U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(a). If the defendant 

was a “manager or supervisor (but not an organizer or leader)” then the increase is 

three levels. Id. § 3B1.1(b).

However, “[i]f the defendant was an organizer, leader, manager, or 

supervisor in any criminal activity” that involved fewer than five participants and 

was not “otherwise extensive” within the meaning of § 3B1.1(a) and (b), then the 

increase is two levels. Id. § 3B1.1(c). A defendant’s assertion of control over only 

one other participant is sufficient to sustain a § 3B1.1(c) two-level increase. 

Id. § 3B1.1, cmt. n.2; Glover, 179 F.3d at 1302.

Factors considered in assessing a defendant’s role include “the exercise of 

decision making authority, the nature of the 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.” U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1, cmt. n.4. These factors are 

Case: 14-10179 Date Filed: 09/05/2014 Page: 3 of 7 
4

“merely considerations for the sentencing judge,” and need not all be present. 

United States v. Martinez, 584 F.3d 1022, 1026 (11th Cir. 2009) (quotation marks 

omitted).

At a minimum, to impose an aggravating-role increase, “there must be 

evidence that the defendant exerted some control, influence or decision-making 

authority over another participant in the criminal activity.” Id.; U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1, 

cmt. n.2. The government has the burden to prove the defendant’s aggravating role 

by a preponderance of the evidence. Martinez, 584 F.3d at 1026-27.

III. OFFORD’S ROLE

Here, in Offord’s sentencing, the district court did not clearly err in applying 

a two-level role increase pursuant to § 3B1.1(c). According to undisputed facts in 

his presentence investigation report (“PSI”), Offord and two codefendants, 

Terricka Randolph and Gina Josaphat, were involved in a scheme to use 

counterfeit Federal Reserve Notes (“FRNs”) to purchase items at Target stores, 

which they then would return to different Target stores for genuine U.S. currency. 

During the investigation, codefendant Josaphat gave a sworn statement that Offord 

recruited her into the counterfeiting scheme, gave her counterfeit FRNs, and 

instructed her on how to use them at Target stores to obtain U.S. currency. 

Codefendant Josaphat also said that, when she bought $1,000 worth of Target 

items, Defendant Offord gave her $300 in genuine currency as payment.

Case: 14-10179 Date Filed: 09/05/2014 Page: 4 of 7 
5

At the sentencing hearing, United States Secret Service Agent Earl 

Kornickey testified that, as part of an earlier counterfeiting investigation of 

Defendant Offord, he interviewed Randolph, and she admitted that Offord 

recruited her into that counterfeiting scheme because he believed that women were 

less likely to get caught. Randolph also told Agent Kornickey that Offord taught 

her how to commit the counterfeiting scheme. Agent Kornickey confirmed that,

when he interviewed Josaphat as part of the instant investigation, she also said that 

Offord recruited her to participate in a counterfeiting scheme and explained the 

scheme to her.

Given the indicia of reliability, the district court properly relied upon Agent 

Kornickey’s hearsay testimony about codefendants Randolph’s and Josaphat’s 

statements. See United States v. Baker, 432 F.3d 1189, 1253 (11th Cir. 2005). 

Specifically, Randolph’s and Josaphat’s statements to Agent Kornickey were 

consistent with each other and with the undisputed facts in the PSI. Further, Agent 

Kornickey was subject to cross-examination at the sentencing hearing.

Although at sentencing Offord’s counsel argued that Randolph and Josaphat 

were the ones who first approached Offord about the counterfeiting scheme, 

Offord presented no evidence to support this claim. An attorney’s factual 

assertions, alone, do not constitute evidence upon which a sentencing court can 

rely. See United States v. Rodriguez, 732 F.3d 1299, 1305 (11th Cir. 2013). 

Case: 14-10179 Date Filed: 09/05/2014 Page: 5 of 7 
6

Accordingly, the district court did not commit clear error when it credited Agent 

Kornickey’s unrebutted testimony.

In short, the government’s unrebutted evidence showed that Defendant 

Offord: (1) approached his codefendants and invited them to become involved in a 

counterfeiting scheme; (2) provided them with the counterfeit obligations and 

taught them how to perform the scheme; and (3) kept the lion’s share of the 

proceeds for himself after his codefendants completed the purchases and returns at

Target stores. Further, Defendant Offord’s recruitment and instruction 

demonstrated the necessary degree of control, influence, or decision-making 

authority over Randolph and Josaphat necessary to qualify for an aggravating-role 

increase pursuant to § 3B1.1. See, e.g., United States v. Caraballo, 595 F.3d 1214, 

1231-32 (11th Cir. 2010) (affirming application of a four-level role increase where 

the defendant, among other things, recruited another participant and gave 

instructions on how to commit the drug-smuggling crime); United States v. 

Ndiaye, 434 F.3d 1270, 1304 (11th Cir. 2006) (affirming the application of a fourlevel role increase where the defendant recruited and instructed others in an 

immigration-fraud conspiracy); United States v. Mandhai, 375 F.3d 1243, 1248 

(11th Cir. 2004) (affirming application of a two-level role increase where the 

defendant recruited another participant into a terrorism plot, prompted him to 

purchase weapons, and briefed him on a bombing plan).

Case: 14-10179 Date Filed: 09/05/2014 Page: 6 of 7 
7

For these reasons, the district court did not err in applying U.S.S.G. 

§ 3B1.1(c)’s two-level aggravating-role increase. Accordingly, we affirm Offord’s 

27-month sentence.

AFFIRMED.

Case: 14-10179 Date Filed: 09/05/2014 Page: 7 of 7