FI LED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEV ENT H CI RCUI T MARCH 3 1, 20 11 J OHN LEY CLERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 13 46 1 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 5 :0 8- cr-0 00 16 -WT M-J EG-3 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti ff - Ap pe ll ee, vers us MATTHEW

L. BLACK, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defen da nt- App el la nt .

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e So ut he rnDis tri ctof Ge or gi a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Ma rch 31 , 20 11 ) Befo re HULL, W ILSON an d M ARTIN, Cir cu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM: Mat th ew Bl ackpl ead edgu il ty to co ns pi racy to c omm itth ree r ob be rie s, i n vi ol at io n o f Hob bs Act. 1 8 U.S.C. § 19 51 . He andtwo co -co ns pi rat or s—And rewHol t an d Am an daCo sg ro ve —ro bb eda co m m erci al bu si ne ss an d t wo fe de ral ly in su redba nk s. Onap pe al , Bla ckarg ue s tha t the di st ric t co urt co m m it te d c le ar erro r insen te nc in g h im

as a n “ or ga ni zer” or “ le ad er” u nd er U.S.S.G. § 3 B1 .1(c ). He al so co nt en ds th athi s 9 7- m on th sen te nc e is subs ta nt iv el y un reas on ab le be cau se itcrea te s an un warrant eddi sp ari ty betweenBla ck an d o ne of h is co co ns pi rat or s, wh o re cei ve d a27 -m on th sen te nc e. Afte r rev ie win g t he reco rdan d th e p art ie s’ bri efs , we affi rm . I. W e rev ie w forcle ar erro r th e d is tri ctco urt’s d et erm in at io n t ha t Bl ackact ed as “ anorg an iz er, l ead er, m an ag er, o r supe rv is or ” fo r th e p ur po se s o f U.S.S.G. § 3B 1.1 (c). Uni te d Sta tes v. Ro dr ig ue z De Va ro n , 17 5 F .3d93 0, 9 38 (11 th Cir . 19 99 ) (en ba nc ). “ A fin di ng is ‘ cl earl y erro ne ou s’ when alt ho ug h t he re i s ev id en ce t o s up po rt i t, the rev ie win g c ou rt o n t he en ti re ev id en ce i s l eftwith t he de fin it e an d fi rm

co nv ic ti on th ata m is ta ke ha s b een co m m it te d.” Uni te d Sta tes v. U.S. Gyp su m Co. , 33 3 U.S. 3 64 , 39 5, 6 8 S . Ct. 5 25 (19 48 ). The Sen te nc in g Gu id el in es all ow fo r anin crea se inth e o ffen se lev el ba se d on th e d efen da nt ’s rol e in a gi ve n c rime. A two -le ve l en ha nc em en t i s ap pl ie d i f th e d efen da nt“ was anorg an iz er, l ead er, m an ag er, o r supe rv is or ” inth e cri m in al

2act iv ity . U.S.S.G. § 3B 1.1 (c). In de ci di ng whet he r su ch anin crea se is

ap pr op ria te , th e d is tri ctco urt co ns id ers

th e ex erci se of de c i s i on m ak in g au th or it y , th e na tu re of pa rti ci pa ti on in th e co m m is si o n of th e of

fen se , th e recrui tm en t of acco mp li ces , th e cl ai m ed rig ht to a la rg er sh are of th e fru it s of the cri m e, th e de gr ee of pa rti ci pa ti on in pl an ni ng or or ga ni zi ng th e of fen se , th e na tu re an d sc op e of th e il le ga l act iv it y , an d th e de gr ee o f co nt ro l an d au th or ity ex erci se d o ve r ot he rs . Id . § 3 B1 .1 n .4. “ The re ca n, o f co ur se , be m or e th anon e p ers on who qu al ifi es as a le ad er o r or ga ni zer o f a cri m in al ass oc ia ti on or c on sp ira cy ,” ho wev er, the en ha nc em en t “ do es no t ap pl y to a de fen da ntwho m erel y su gg es ts co m

m it ti ng th e of fen se .” Id . Thi s C ou rt h as he ldth at“ th e as se rti on of c on tro l o r in flu en ce” o ve r a s in gl e in di vi du al is su ffi ci en t t o s up po rt a§ 3 B1 .1(c ) en hanc em en t. Uni te d Sta tes v. Ji min ez , 22 4 F .3d12 43 , 12 51 (11 thCir . 20 00 ). Forex am pl e, a d efen da nt ’s de ci si on to recrui t, p ro m

ptot he rs to pu rch as e weap on s, an d b rie f an ot he r on th e pl ande ta il s i s s uf

fic ie ntto warran t the off

en se -le ve l i nc reas e. Uni te d Sta tes v. Man dh ai , 37 5 F .3d12 43 , 12 48 (11 th Cir . 20 04 ). Des pi te th e ex is te nc e o f is ol at edfact s i nd ic at in g t ha t an y gi ve n m em

be r was a “ le ad er,” we s eri ou sl y

do ub t tha t i t i s p os si bl e to ex te ndth e le ad ers hi p

3en ha nc em en t t o e ve ry m em be r of a co ns pi racy, Here, h owe ve r, we can no t co nc lu de th atth e d is tri ctco urt cl earl y erredas B la ck ’s act io ns su ffi ci en tl y supp ort it s d et erm in at io n. Bl ackco nc ed es th athe “ was no t a m ere f ol lo wer,” an d the pre se nt en ce i nv es ti ga ti on rep ort co nf irms th at . He su gg es te d c omm it ti ng th e cri m e, an d wh il e th is alo ne is in su ffi ci en t t o ju st ify the en ha nc em en t, h e wen t fu rth er an d, in te r a li a , enl is te d the two ot he r co -co ns pi rat or s. He i nv ol ve d h im se lf i n t he pl an ni ng an d e xe cu ti on of e ach of t he rob be rie s. He en co ur ag edHol t t o p ro cu re a gu n. Bl ack ’s arg um en t tha t Co sg ro ve pl ay eda gr eat er l ead ers hi p ro le do es no t fo recl os e th e co nc lu si on th atth e en ha nc em en t i s ap pr op ria te forBla ck . Acco rd in gl y , we up ho ldth e d is tri ctco urt’s ap pl ic at io n o f th e se nt en ce en ha nc em en t. II. W e rev ie w th e se nt en ce i m po se d b y th e d is tri ctco urt fo r rea so nabl en es s. Uni te d Sta tes v. Ta ll ey , 43 1 F .3d78 4, 7 85 (11 thCir . 20 05 ) (p er cu ria m). The rev ie w is de fere nt ia l, an d ade fen da ntch al le ng in g h is sen te nc e b ears th e b ur de n o f sh owi ng th athi s s en te nc e is un reas on ab le . Id . at 7 88 . At se nt en ci ng , th e d is tri ct co urt m us t co ns id er the fact or s l is te d i n 1 8 U.S.C. § 35 53 (a), wh ic h i nc lu de av oi di ng un warra nt edsen te nc in g d is pa rit ie s b etweensi m il arl y si tu at ed de fen da nt s. Se e 18 U.S.C. § 3 55 3( a)(6 ). Howev er, the re ca nn otbe an 4un warra nt edsen te nc in g d is pa rit y be twee n d efen da nt s t ha t ar e n otsi m il arl y si tu at ed . Uni te d Sta tes v. S po erke , 56 8 F .3d12 36 , 12 52 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ). In o th er wor ds , “ ‘[a] well -fo un de d c la im of d is pa rit y

. . . as su m es th atap pl es are b ei ng co m pa redto ap pl es .’ ” Uni te d Sta tes v. Do ca mpo , 57 3 F .3d10 91 , 11 01 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ) (quo ti ng Uni te d Sta tes v. Ma te o- Esp ej o , 42 6 F .3d50 8, 5 14 (1s t Ci r. 20 05 )) . Here, Bl ackfoc us es on th e d is pa rity be twee n h is sen te nc e an d t he 27 -m on th se nt en ce Ho ltrece iv ed . Blac k, h owe ve r, fai ls to ap pr eci at e th athe an d Ho ltare no t s im il arl y

si tu at ed . Mos t i m

po rta nt ly, Bl ackpl ead edgu il ty to co ns pi racy to co m m itth ree r ob be rie s wh il e Hol t p le ad edgu il ty to o ne rob be ry . Furt he rm or e, Hol t p ro vi de d m or e as si st an ce t o t he go ve rn m en t tha n B la ckinanun rel at ed in ve st ig at io n, re su lt in g i n t he go ve rn m en t fi li ng a § 5 K1.1 subs ta nt ia l-a ss is ta nc e m ot io n b as edon “ ve ry

si gn ifi can t” ass is ta nc e—r athe r th an“ si gn ifi can t” as si st an ce— on Hol t’s b eh al f. As the two are n otsi m il arl y si tu at ed , Bla ck ’s arg um en t i s m is gu id edan d fa il s. III. W e d et erm in e th atth e d is tri ctco urt d idno t cl earl y err i n s en te nc in g B la ck as a “ le ad er” o r “ or gani zer” forhi s ro le inth e th ree r ob be rie s atis su e. Fu rth erm or e, th e se nt en ce i m po se d fo r hi s cr im in al co nduc t i s re as on ab le . Acco rd in gl y , we affi rm . 5AFFIRMED.

6