[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 12-10252

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 5:11-cr-00023-RS-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

RUFINO ROBELO-GALO, 

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Florida

________________________

(March 25, 2013)

Before MARCUS, WILSON and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Case: 12-10252 Date Filed: 03/25/2013 Page: 1 of 5 
2

Rufino Robelo-Galo appeals his 354-month sentence, imposed after he 

pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to 

distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(b)(1)(A)(viii) and 

846 (Count 1), and one count of possessing a firearm in a drug trafficking crime, in 

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i) (Count 8). The district court applied a 

four-level enhancement to Robelo-Galo’s sentence under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(a) for 

acting as an organizer or leader of a criminal activity. Robelo-Galo argues on 

appeal that the district court erred in applying the leadership role enhancement 

because the undisputed facts in the pre-sentence investigation report (PSI) do not 

demonstrate that he exercised decision-making authority over other coconspirators, or that he claimed a right to a larger share of the fruits of the crime. 

Upon review of the record and consideration of the parties’ briefs, we affirm.

“A defendant’s role as an organizer or leader is a factual finding that we 

review for clear error to determine” whether the enhancement was properly 

applied. United States v. Ramirez, 426 F.3d 1344, 1355 (11th Cir. 2005) (per 

curiam). Where a fact pattern gives rise to two reasonable but different 

constructions, the district court’s choice between them cannot be clearly erroneous. 

See United States v. Almedina, 686 F.3d 1312, 1315 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 133 

S. Ct. 629 (2012). Moreover, a failure to object to allegations of fact in a PSI 

admits those facts for sentencing purposes, and a district court may base its 

Case: 12-10252 Date Filed: 03/25/2013 Page: 2 of 5 
3

findings of fact on these undisputed statements. See United States v. Bennett, 472 

F.3d 825, 832–834 (11th Cir. 2006) (per curiam).

Under the Guidelines, a defendant’s offense level is increased by four levels 

“[i]f the defendant 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). The 

defendant must have acted as an organizer or leader “of one or more other 

participants” in order to qualify for the enhancement. U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1 cmt. n.2. 

The commentary to § 3B1.1 sets forth the factors for the district court to consider 

“[i]n distinguishing a leadership and organizational role from one of mere 

management or supervision” as follows: 

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. 

U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1 cmt. n.4. The government must have proved the existence of a 

leadership role by a preponderance of the evidence. See United States v. Alred,

144 F.3d 1405, 1421 (11th Cir. 1998). However, we review the district court’s 

application of the facts to the Guideline factors deferentially. See Ramirez, 426 

F.3d at 1355. 

Here, the district court did not commit clear error by applying the leadership 

role enhancement to Robelo-Galo’s Guideline calculation. Robelo-Galo asserts 

Case: 12-10252 Date Filed: 03/25/2013 Page: 3 of 5 
4

that none of the co-conspirators’ statements or recorded calls indicated that he 

directed their activities or exerted control over other participants. He maintains 

that orchestrating drug shipments or acting as a supplier does not prove leadership, 

“and can just as easily indicate a subordinate role.” Robelo-Galo further contends 

that, at most, he was a manager or supervisor of these activities, which does not 

support a four-level enhancement. Finally, with regard to claiming a greater share 

of the proceeds, Robelo-Galo emphasizes that none of the evidence shows that he 

had any personal stake in the money. We disagree. 

The undisputed facts in the PSI, together with Robelo-Galo’s own 

admissions, amply support the conclusion that Robelo-Galo substantially 

participated in the organization of methamphetamine shipments and deliveries. 

Robelo-Galo made weekly trips from South Carolina to Florida to deliver 

methamphetamine to Bussey, a large methamphetamine distributor. He wielded a 

sufficient degree of authority over at least seven other participants, specifically the 

couriers, by controlling their movements and paying them for their services. 

Robelo-Galo even recommended potential couriers to the organization.

Additionally, and by his own admission, Robelo-Galo directly supervised at 

least two of the participants, thus satisfying the adjustment qualification of acting 

as a leader over “one or more other participants” under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1. Lastly, 

Robelo-Galo claimed the right to a larger share of the money derived from the 

Case: 12-10252 Date Filed: 03/25/2013 Page: 4 of 5 
5

sales, and used other conspirators to shield him from potential detection. Thus, 

Robelo-Galo has not met his burden of showing clear error in the district court’s 

judgment. Accordingly, we affirm the sentence imposed by the district court. 

AFFIRMED.

Case: 12-10252 Date Filed: 03/25/2013 Page: 5 of 5