UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-4329

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

OSCAR ALCIDES-MENDEZ,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior 

District Judge. (6:13-cr-00631-HMH-4)

Submitted: November 25, 2014 Decided: December 11, 2014

Before MOTZ, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Russell Warren Mace, III, THE MACE FIRM, Myrtle Beach, South 

Carolina, for Appellant. William N. Nettles, United States 

Attorney, Andrew Burke Moorman, Sr., Assistant United States 

Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Oscar Alcides-Mendez pled guilty to one count of 

conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and distribution 

of five kilograms or more of cocaine and 100 kilograms or more 

of marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), 

and 846 (2012). The district court sentenced Alcides-Mendez to 

130 months’ imprisonment. Alcides-Mendez timely appeals his 

sentence, arguing that the district court (1) erred in applying

a three-level enhancement under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines 

Manual (“USSG”) § 3B1.1(b); (2) should have granted him safety 

valve relief under USSG § 5C1.2; and (3) failed to adequately 

inquire into a presentence conflict between Alcides-Mendez and 

his counsel. Finding no error, we affirm.

Alcides-Mendez’s argument regarding the three-level 

enhancement is two-fold: first, he contends that the district 

court failed to make factual findings supporting the 

enhancement, and second, he asserts that the evidence does not 

support application of the enhancement. To permit meaningful 

appellate review, a district court should make factual findings 

when ruling on a disputed Sentencing Guidelines enhancement. 

See Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(i)(3)(B) (providing that, at sentencing, 

the district court “must – for any disputed portion of the 

presentence report or other controverted matter – rule on the 

dispute or determine that a ruling is unnecessary”); United 
3

States v. Llamas, 599 F.3d 381, 388 (4th Cir. 2010) (“[A] 

sentencing court must provide a sufficient explanation of its 

rationale in making factual findings to support its calculation 

of a defendant’s Guidelines range.”). A district court may 

satisfy this requirement, however, by adopting factual findings 

in the record, so long as it is clear what disputed issues are 

resolved. United States v. Bolden, 325 F.3d 471, 497 (4th Cir. 

2003). Here, following the Government’s arguments in favor of 

the enhancement, the district court adopted the facts as 

summarized by the Government. Accordingly, the district court 

properly established its factual basis for applying the disputed 

enhancement. 

As to the second aspect of the enhancement challenge, 

Alcides-Mendez argues that the Government offered insufficient

evidence to sustain the enhancement. Under USSG § 3B1.1(b), a 

three-level enhancement is warranted if “the defendant was a 

manager or supervisor (but not an organizer or leader) and the 

criminal activity involved five or more participants.” A 

district court’s “ruling regarding a role adjustment is a 

factual determination reviewed for clear error.” United 

States v. Kellam, 568 F.3d 125, 147-48 (4th Cir. 2009). 

Alcides-Mendez concedes that the conspiracy involved five or 

more participants, challenging only whether he was a manager or 

supervisor. The three-level enhancement is applicable if the 
4

defendant managed or supervised at least one other participant 

in the conspiracy. United States v. Rashwan, 328 F.3d 160, 166 

(4th Cir. 2003).

Evidence considered by the district court revealed 

that Alcides-Mendez recruited a coconspirator to transport 

cocaine on Alcides-Mendez’s behalf and at his direction. 

Evidence was further offered that Alcides-Mendez determined how 

much cocaine his recruit would transport on any given trip,

arranged the travel logistics, and paid his recruit on a flat, 

by-the-trip basis, much like one would pay an employee. Based 

on this evidence, the district court did not clearly err in 

ruling that a preponderance of the evidence supported the 

conclusion that Alcides-Mendez was a manager or supervisor over 

at least one participant in the conspiracy.

The conclusion that Alcides-Mendez was a manager or 

supervisor is dispositive on the second issue, whether AlcidesMendez was eligible for safety valve relief. Pursuant to USSG 

§ 5C1.2(a)(4), a defendant is eligible for sentencing under the

safety valve only if “the defendant was not an organizer, 

leader, manager, or supervisor of others in the offense.” 

Accordingly, the district court properly denied safety valve 

relief.

Finally, Alcides-Mendez argues that the district court 

failed to make proper inquiry into a conflict he had with his 
5

attorney prior to sentencing that resulted in his inadequate 

understanding of the presentence report. The record belies this 

claim, however, and reflects that the district court did explore 

this issue and found that counsel provided Alcides-Mendez with a 

full explanation of the report. Therefore, this claim warrants 

no relief.

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. 

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED