[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________ No. 12

- 1 0252 Non

- Argument Calendar

________________________ D.C. Docket No. 5 :11

- cr - 00023

- RS

- 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v ersus 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 52 Rufino Robelo

- Galo appeals his 354

- month sentence , imposed after he ple a d ed guilty to one count of conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 8 41(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 ) d o no t demonstrate that he exercised decision

- making authority over other co

conspirators , 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 r ole as an organizer or le ader is a factual finding that we review for clear error to de termine ” whether the enhancement was properly applied

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

. W here 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. 6 29 (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 53 findings of fact on these undisputed statements

. See United States v. Bennett , 472 F.3d 825, 832

– 834 (11th Cir. 200 6) (per curiam)

. Under the G uidelines, 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 w as 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 c m t. 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 t he 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 cm t. n.4

. The government must have prove d 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

a pplication of the facts to the G uideline factors deferentially. See Ramirez , 426 F.3d at 1355. Here, t he district court did not commit clear error by applying the leadership rol e enhancement to Robelo

- Galo’s G uideline calculation. Robelo

- Galo asserts

Case: 12-10252 Date Filed: 03/25/2013 Page: 3 of 54 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 subo rdinate 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 organizati on of methamphet amine 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 b y his own admission, Robelo

- Galo directly supervised at
l east 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 55 sales, an d used other conspirators to shield him from potential detection. Thus, Rob elo

- 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