2013 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

12-12-2013

USA v. Lamont Hunter

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 13-1444

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2013

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2013 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"USA v. Lamont Hunter" (2013). 2013 Decisions. Paper 1576.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2013/1576
NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

_____________

No. 13-1444

_____________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

LAMONT HUNTER,

 Appellant 

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Pennsylvania

(No. 2-11-cr-00045-012)

District Judge: Hon. Arthur J. Schwab

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

December 10, 2013

Before: McKEE, Chief Judge, FUENTES, and CHAGARES, Circuit Judges.

(Filed: December 12, 2013)

____________

OPINION

____________

CHAGARES, Circuit Judge.

Lamont Hunter appeals the District Court’s application of a three-level sentencing 

enhancement pursuant to § 3B1.1(b) of the advisory 2012 United States Sentencing 

Guidelines for being a manager or organizer of a conspiracy. For the reasons that follow, 

we will affirm.
2

I.

Because we write solely for the benefit of the parties, we will only briefly 

summarize the facts relevant to our decision. This case stems from a wide-ranging 

indictment that charged twenty-four members of a Pittsburgh gang, the Manchester OGs,

and its associates with violations of narcotics and firearms laws. The only count naming 

Hunter charged him with unlawfully conspiring to distribute, and possession with intent 

to distribute one kilogram or more of heroin pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 846. On the eve of 

trial, Hunter pleaded guilty to this sole count without the benefit of a written plea 

agreement.

Hunter supplied other members of the conspiracy with heroin on a regular basis 

from January 2010 until March 2011. He would obtain heroin from several sources, 

including one from Detroit. The Detroit source supplied Hunter with between 25 and 200 

grams of unbagged heroin on approximately ten occasions. After he received the heroin, 

he would have certain heroin users dilute it and place it in stamp bags at his direction. He 

also directed Clayton Bonner, a co-conspirator who pleaded guilty to the same charge, to 

purchase at least five boxes of empty stamp bags about every ten days. In addition to 

directing Bonner to purchase the empty stamp bags, he supplied Bonner with at least four 

“bricks” on an almost daily basis throughout the conspiracy. Each “brick” contained fifty

stamp bags of heroin and had a wholesale value between $200 and $500. Hunter 

admitted to all of these facts at his change of plea hearing. 

Based on his directing certain heroin users to dilute and bag the heroin, and his 

directing Bonner to purchase stamp bags, the Probation Office recommended a three 
3

level enhancement for being a manager or supervisor in the conspiracy. Hunter objected 

in two written submissions prior to sentencing and at the sentencing itself. While he did 

not object to any of the facts that he admitted at his change of plea hearing, he argued that 

these facts did not provide a sufficient basis on which the District Court could apply § 

3B1.1(b). The District Court overruled Hunter’s objection, finding that Hunter exercised 

control over Bonner and the baggers. The court sentenced Hunter to 188 months of 

imprisonment. Hunter timely appealed.

II.

The District Court had jurisdiction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3231. We have 

appellate jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. When there is “no dispute over the 

factual determinations but the issue is whether the agreed-upon set of facts fit within the 

enhancement requirements,” we review “for clear error the district court’s applications of 

those facts to the Guidelines.” United States v. Fish, 731 F.3d 277, 279 (3d Cir. 2013) 

(citing United States v. Richards, 674 F.3d 214, 233 (3d Cir. 2012)).

III.

Under § 3B1.1(b), a sentencing court may increase the defendant's offense level by 

three levels where “the defendant was a manager or supervisor . . . and the criminal 

activity involved five or more participants or was otherwise extensive.” To qualify for 

the enhancement, the defendant must have managed or supervised at least one other 

participant in the illegal activity. See U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1 cmt. n. 2; United States v. 

Bethancourt, 65 F.3d 1074, 1081 (3d Cir. 1995). A “participant” is one who is criminally 

responsible for the offense, but that person need not have been convicted. See U.S.S.G. § 
4

3B1.1 cmt. n. 1. A manager or supervisor, although not defined in the Guidelines, is one 

who “exercise[s] some degree of control over others involved in the offense.” United 

States v. Chau, 293 F.3d 96, 103 (3d Cir. 2002). 

Hunter does not challenge the facts that the District Court found, or that the 

criminal activity involved five or more participants. He only argues that the facts of his 

case do not make him a supervisor within the meaning of § 3B1.1(b). We disagree.

Hunter admitted at his change of plea hearing that he directed the baggers and 

Bonner. Bonner was undoubtedly a “participant” within the meaning of § 3B1.1(b), 

because he was a criminally responsible member of the conspiracy who pled guilty to the 

same charge as Hunter. Bonner purchased the stamp bags not for any lawful purpose 

outside the scope of the conspiracy, but so that Hunter could bag the heroin he received 

from his sources, and he did so at Hunter’s behest. These undisputed facts establish that 

Hunter “exercised control over at least one other person.” United States v. Katora, 981 

F.2d 1398, 1402 (3d Cir. 1992). The District Court’s finding that Hunter was a 

supervisor within the meaning of § 3B1.1 was not clearly erroneous.

IV.

For these reasons, we will affirm the District Court’s application of the sentencing 

enhancement.