* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of

law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. This court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### MAR 30 1999 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v. AMANDA D. TULL,

Defendant - Appellant. No. 98-3253 (D. Ct. No. 98-CR-20021-2)

(D. Kan.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before TACHA , McKAY , and MURPHY , Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and the appellate record , this three-judge panel has determined unanimously that oral argument wouldnot be of material assistance in the determination of this appeal. Se e Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered sub mitted without oral argument. This appeal is from an order of the district court sentencing defendant Tull to a seventy month term of incarceration which incl uded a two-level enhancement pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(c). Defendant appeals on the ground that the- 2 -

district court erred in applying the two-level enhancement for defendant Tull’s role in the offense. We affirm. Defendant Tull pled guilty to a one-count indictmen t which charged her with kidnaping and carrying away newborn baby Carli e Shockey from the Kansas University Medical Center and willfully transportin g her in interstate commerce from the state of Kansas to the state of Missouri i n violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1201(a)(1) and 2. The presentence report in thi s matter recommended a twolevel increase in defendant’s sentence for her role as an organizer or leader in the offense pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(c). Defendantargues on appeal that the district court lacked a sufficient factual basis fo r this enhancement. The factual basis upon which the two-level enhancem ent was imposed relies upon the plans that defendant clearly made w ith respect to purchasing a baby bed for her home, entering the University of K ansas Medical Center when security guards were not on duty in the maternity w ard, and the availability of the car seat, which was given to the co-defendant to pl ace in the car. Defendant objected to the enhancement at the sentencing heari ng which was held on September 1, 1998. The district court denied defen dant’s objection and imposed the two-level enhancement. In reviewing a districtcourt’s decision to impose an enhancement pursuant to § 3B1.1(c), we review the u nderlying factual findings for clear error and the legal conclusions de novo. See United States v. Shumway ,- 3 -

112 F.3d 1413, 1424 (10th Cir. 1997). Defendant claims on appeal that she should not have been subject to the two-level enhancement because she was the only pers on with criminal culpability in the crime. Co-defendant Mr. Hall pled guilty to being an accessory after the fact and there were no other participants in this o ffense. The relevant inquiry in the imposition of a two-level enhancement for a rol e in the offense is whether the defendant had any decision-making or any managerial authority in the criminal enterprise. The factual basis that is provided in the presentence report and was relied upon at the sentencing hearing is clearly ad equate to show criminal culpability of both of the co-defendants and that t he defendant’s role in the offense took into account all of the conduct withinthe criminal enterprise. It is sufficient under the United States Sentencing Guide lines that other persons whom a defendant supervised were culpably involved in th e charged crimes that were part of the same course of conduct or common scheme or plan as the offense of conviction. See United States v. Allemand , 34 F.3d 923, 931 (10th Cir. 1994). All of the facts that support the leader or organiz er status of this defendant were before the district court and fully support the imp osition of the two-level- 4 -

enhancement. We AFFIRM.

ENTERED FOR THE COURT,

Deanell Reece Tacha Circuit Judge