1 The Honorable Ann D. Montgomery, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 10-1048

___________ United States of America, *
* Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of Minnesota. Zeferino Gutierrez-Ayala, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: October 18, 2010 Filed: October 25, 2010

___________ Before RILEY, Chief Judge, BYE and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Zeferino Gutierrez-Ayala pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to distribute at least 1,500 grams but less than 5,000 gram s of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of methamphetamine and at least 500 grams but less than 2,000 grams of cocaine hydrochloride in violati on of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), and 846. The district court 1 sentenced Gutierrez-Ayala to 210 months’ imprisonment, based in part on a four-level enhancemen t under United States Sentencing Guidelines Manual (U.S.S.G.) § 3B1.1(a) for being an organizer or leader of criminal activity.-2- Gutierrez-Ayala appeals, arguing the districtcourt erred in finding his offense level should be increased pursuant to the l eadership enhancement. We affirm.

We review the district court’s factual findings concerning the four-level enhancement for clear error and its ultim ate sentence for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Molina-Perez , 595 F.3d 854, 862 (8th Cir. 2010). Under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(a), the offense level is increas ed by 4 levels if the defendant was “an organizer or leader of a crimin al activity that involved five or more participants or was otherwise extensive.” United States v. Cosey , 602 F.3d 943, 947-48 (8th Cir. 2010). The adjustment is intended to reflect the defendant’s criminal responsibility relative to other participants in the crime. United States v. Cunningham , 593 F.3d 726, 731 (8th Cir. 2010). We interpret the terms “organizer” and “leader” broadly. United States v. Bolden , 596 F.3d 976, 983 (8th Cir. 2010).
In determining whether to apply the enhancement, a sentencing court should consider the defendant’s 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 the offense, the nature and scope of the illegal activity, and the degree of control and authority exercised over others.

Id. (citing U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1 cmt. n. 4).

We conclude the district court did not clearly err in finding Gutierrez-Ayala was a leader or organizer of the conspiracy . First, it is uncontested the conspiracy involved five or more participants. While Gutierrez-Ayala objectedto the Presentence Report’s (PSR) characterization of him as a l eader or organizer, the district court was entitled to accept the undisputed portions of the PSR in making its findings of fact. See United States v. Razo-Guerra , 534 F.3d 970, 975 (8th Cir. 2008) (“[U]nless a defendant objects to a specific factual alle gation contained in the PSR, the court may-3- accept that fact as true for sentencing purposes.”) (citation omitted). For instance, Gutierrez-Ayala did not object to paragraphs in the PSR detailing his oversight of a co-conspirator, Jose Luis Lucio, including his use of a drug courier to transport drugs to Lucio in order for Lucio to sell to custom ers. Notably, the PSR indicated that Lucio was also a leader in the conspiracy, and it was clear that Gutierrez-Ayala distributed drugs to Lucio for resale. See United States v. Williams , 605 F.3d 556, 571 (8th Cir. 2010) (“Typically, this [four-level] enhan cement applies to a defendant who employs or otherwise arranges for intermediaries to sell his drugs.”) (citation omitted). In another unobjected-to paragr aph, Gutierrez-Ayala was told by a separate coconspirator of a customer who wanted to purchase 1.5 kilograms of cocaine for $37,000, and he responded that his cousin, another co-conspi rator, would be there in ten minutes and Gutierrez-Ayala would take $4,000 for facilitating the deal.

These unobjected-to paragraphs make clear that Gutierrez-Ayala maintained a distributor role to his co-conspirators, utilized a courier for the transactions, took a share of the profits as a facilitator, and ex ercised his decision-making authority in the commission of the offense. As a result, th e district court’s fi ndings are adequately supported by the record and they justify th e finding that Gutierrez-Ayala was a leader or organizer of a criminal activity involving five or more individuals. SeeRazoGuerra , 534 F.3d at 976 (“Because [the defendant] objected not to the facts themselves, but only to the report’s recomme ndation based on those facts, the district court appropriately accepted the specific factual allegations . . . as true without further evidence by the Government.”) (interna l quotation marks and citation omitted).
We affirm Gutierrez-Ayala’s sentence a nd the judgment of the district court.

______________________________