The Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren, Chief Judge, United States District Court 1

for the Western District of Arkansas. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 98-2195

___________

United States of America, *

 *

Appellee, *

 *

v. * Appeal from the United States

 * District Court for the

Rodney Paul Canada; Barbara * Western District of Arkansas. 

Canada, *

 * [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellants. *

___________

 Submitted: November 5, 1998

 Filed: November 10, 1998

___________

Before FAGG, BEAM, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges. 

___________

PER CURIAM.

Rodney and Barbara Canada pleaded guilty to conspiring to sell stolen motor

vehicles, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 371, 2313. The district court sentenced Rodney 1

to 39 months imprisonment followed by 3 years supervised release, and Barbara to 15

months imprisonment followed by 3 years supervised release. The Canadas challenge

their sentences, and we affirm.
-2-

For reversal, the Canadas argue the district court clearly erred in establishing their

total offense levels based on an enhancement for participating in an organized scheme

to steal vehicles, pursuant to U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2B1.1(b)(5) (1997),

and in applying two-level role-in-the-offense enhancements for being organizers or

leaders of criminal activity, pursuant to U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 3B1.1(c)

(1997). In addition, the Canadas argue that the enhancements are not supported by any

evidence other than hearsay evidence that the court indicated it would not consider. At

sentencing, a government witness testified that the Canadas offered stolen vehicles for

sale to a third party on multiple occasions, and sold the third party three stolen vehicles

from Western Arkansas and Eastern Oklahoma; that a co-defendant indicated he and

another co-defendant had stolen these vehicles at the Canadas& direction, and both codefendants lived with the Canadas during this time; that the Canadas received the bulk

of the proceeds from these sales; and that Rodney told the third party that Rodney had

someone who would steal for him.

Based on this testimony, we conclude the district court did not clearly err in

assessing the organized-scheme enhancement. See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual

§ 2B1.1(b)(5) (1997) (increase offense level to 14 if offense involved organized scheme

to steal vehicles, and offense level would otherwise be less than 14). We also conclude

the district court did not clearly err in determining the Canadas were organizers or

leaders pursuant to section 3B1.1(c). See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 3B1.1,

comment. (n.4) (1997) (court should consider, among other things, defendant&s decisionmaking authority and degree of participation in planning offense, whether defendant

recruited accomplices, whether defendant claimed greater profit from crime, and

defendant&s control and authority over others); United States v. Ballew, 40 F.3d 936,

944 (8th Cir. 1994) (standard of review; no clear error in applying § 3B1.1(c)

enhancement where defendant in truck-theft/insurance-fraud scheme “stood to gain the

most” from scheme, and enlisted accomplices to assist in theft and concealment of

trucks), cert. denied, 514 U.S. 1091 (1995). Finally, we conclude the Canadas&

argument that the district court erred in relying on hearsay evidence during the
-3-

sentencing hearing is meritless. See United States v. Wise, 976 F.2d 393, 401-02 (8th

Cir. 1992) (en banc), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 989 (1993). In any event, we conclude the

enhancements were supportable without reference to this hearsay evidence.

Accordingly, we affirm.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.