United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 97-1668

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * v. * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the Western John Bradford Bond, * District of Missouri. * [PUBLISH] Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: September 10, 1997 Filed: February 6, 1998

___________ Before McMILLIAN, ROSS and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM.
John Bradford Bond pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribut e methamphet amine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a) and 846, and wa s sent enced to 210 months imprisonment. On appeal Bond challenges th e voluntariness of his guilty plea and a sentence enhancement for his role inthe offense under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(a). We reject his arguments an d affirm.

## The Honorable Russell G. Clark, Senior Judge, United States District Court 1 

## for the Western District of Missouri. -2- Bond argues that his plea was inv oluntary because at the plea hearing his counsel estimated that Bond would be subj ect to a guidelines sentencing range of 121 to 151 months. His argument is without merit. A defens e counse l's erroneous estimate of a guidelines sentence does not render a n otherw ise voluntary plea involuntary. United States v. Rhodes , 913 F.2 d 839, 843 (10th Cir. 1990), cert. denied , 498 U.S. 1122 (1991); cf. United States v. Fortney , 957 F.2d 629, 631 (8th Cir .) (per curiam) ("government's incorre ct estimate of [defendant's] criminal history category" does no t necessarily "render[] the guilty plea invalid "), cert. denied , 506 U.S. 902 (19 92). In this case, before accepting Bond's guilty plea, the distric t court complied with the requirements of Fed. R. Crim. P. 11. Among other

1 things, the court advised Bond that the guidelines would determine hi s sen tence unless the statute overrode the guidelines. The court furthe r advised that the statutory minimum sentence was ten years and the maximum sentence was life. We note that "[i]n accepting [Bond's] guilty plea, the district court was not obligated to inform [Bond] of the applicabl e guideline range or the actual sentence he would receive." United States v. Marks , 85 F.3d 396, 398 (8th Cir.), cert. denied , 117 S. Ct. 205 (1996).

Follow ing his plea and before sentencing, Bond filed a pro se motion to withdraw his guilty plea. At the sentencing hearing, the court aske d Bond whether he wa nted to be heard on the motion. He said no and withdrew the motion. On ap peal Bond argues that the court erred in allowing him to withdraw his pro se motion, asserting that he had inadequate representat ion. We need not address this argument, since Bond failed to raise the issu e below. In any event, even if Bond's motion to

### -3-

withdraw had been before the district court, the court would not have abused its discretion in rejecting it. "A defendant's misapprehension of th e application of the Guidelines to his sentencing does not constitute a fair and just reason for withdrawing a plea so long as the defendant was toldthe range of potential punishment and that the Guidelines would be applied to determine his sentence." United States v. Burney , 75 F.3d 442, 445 (8t h Cir. 1996). "This remains true even where such a misunderstanding is based on an erroneous estimation by defense counsel." Id.

In this case, it appears that counsel's miscalculation was based o n his belief that Bond would not receive an enhancement for his role in the offense under U.S. S.G. § 3B1.1(a), which provides a four-level enhancement "[i]f the defendan t was an organizer or leader of a criminal activity that involved five or more participants or was otherwise extensive." However, the plea agreement specifically informed Bond that the district court at the time of sentencing would decide whether the enhancement applied.
Contrary to Bond's argument on ap peal, the district court did not err in imp osing the enhancement. Bond does not challenge the scope of th e act ivity, but argues that the government failed to prove that he was a n organizer or leader. We disagree. "The term s 'organizer' and 'leader' are to be broadly interpreted." United States v. Guerra , 113 F.3d 809, 820 (8th Cir. 199 7). "Factors the court should consider include the exercise o f decisionmaking authority, the nature of participation in the commission of the offense, . . . and the degree of control and authority exercised over others." U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1, application note 4. At the sentencing hearing, an undercover officer testified that Bond "w as at the top with individuals underne aththat were distributing methamphetamine." In particular, th e officer noted that Bond "fronted" drugs,

### -4-

maintained control over the proceeds, required distributors to "pair up" for sa fety, and directed the activities of a "mule." Because the distric t court's finding that Bond was an organizer or leader is supported by th e evidence, it is not erroneous. See, e.g. , Guerra , 113 F.3d at 820. Accordingly, we affirm.
A true copy.

Attest:

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