## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 12

- 3324 U NI T ED S TATE SOF A MERI CA, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. J EFFRE Y W EAVER, D e f e ndan t

-Appe l l ant
.
A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the S outhernDi stricto f Indian a, Indian apolisDiv isi on. No . 1:11CR00153- 001

—WilliamT. Lawrence , Judge .
A RG UE D A PRI L 30, 2013

— D ECI DE D J UNE 3, 2013

Befo re F LA UM, W OOD a nd H A MI L T ON, C ircu it Judges . F LA UM, C ircu it Judge. J effre y W eave r sol d m etham phetam i ne o n cr ed it to two buyer s, wh o pai d offthei r debts b y s e l l i ngthe drug s t o the i ro w n c us t o mer s . ( I n t r a de par l a nc e , thi s i s kno wn a s “ fr o nt i ng ” the drug s . ) Wea ver ple aded gui l ty to conspi ring with thos e buy er s t o p o ss es s a n d d ist rib u te m et h am p h et am in e, see2 1 U. S
. C. §§ 841( a) ( 1) , 84 6, and the dist ri ct c ourtse ntenced h im to 235 m onths’ i m pri sonm ent, the b ottom o fthe gui del i nes2 N o. 12

- 3324

ra nge c alculat ed by the c ourt
. On app ealW eave r ar gue s th atthe c o ur t o ve r st at ed th atr an g e bya ss ess i ng a 3-l evel up w ard a dj us tm en t for his p erceived l ead ershi p ro l e a s a m anage r orsuperv isor ofthe conspi ra cy. Se e U .S.S. G. § 3 B1. 1( b)

. But ther e i s no ev i dence that W ea ve rmana g ed o rs upervi se d hi s buy er s o ra ny othe r p ar tici pant, and thus we vaca te the s entence and rem and fo r re sente nci ng. W hi l e invest i gat i ng a m etham phetam i ne co nspir acy oper ating i n I nd i anapol i s, the FBIl earned that W eave r h ad b e e n su p p lyin g G re go ry W ilke y a n d Sys in e D ale w i th two o unces o fthe drug, two ort h re e tim es a w ee k. W ilke y a n d D ale , w ith h elp from W ilke y’s girlfri end and D al e’ s boyfr i end, r eso l d the m etham phetam in e fro m th eir h o m e s . W ea ve r, W ilke y, D ale , th e g irlfri en d and boyfri en d , and tw o of W ilk ey’s and Da le’ s custo m er s were charg ed i n A ugust 2 01 1 w i th co nspir acy. W eave r ple aded gui l ty w i thout a pl ea agr eem ent. The proba ti on o ffi c er ’s fac tualsum m ar y, wh i ch nei ther p a r t y d i s p u t e d , s h e d s l i g h to n We a v e r ’ s r o l e . T h a ts u mm ar y, i n the prese nten c e report, does notsa y ho w W eave r obt ai ned the m etham phetam i ne he fro nted to W i l k e y a nd Da l e , wh o i n t urn s o l d the drug s a nd s e ttl ed up w i th W eave r at th e r ate o f$1 , 700 per ounce. A ccor ding to the pr obat i on o ffi cer, W ea ver“co ntro l l ed h ow m u c h an d h ow oft en ” W ilke y an d D a l e “w ou ld re cei ve m etham phetam i ne” a nd “instr ucted them to pr o m ptly s el li t so he co ul d di st r ibut e m o r e to the m . ” And at ti m es, the sum m ar y continues, W eave r “w ould pre ssure ” W i l keyand Dal e t o m ake sa l es. A s a n “exam ple ” o fN o. 12

- 3324 3 th i s “pr es su r e, ” th e pr o ba ti o n o ffi ce rc i te d a s i ng l e t ex t m ess age thatW eave r had sent W i l key

. W eave r’ s m ess age , w h ich rea d s, “W h at s u p m an j u st giv inu a p ep ta lk

‘ g etrdo ne ’ a nd hi t m e up, ” pr o m pte d W i l k eyto s en d a t ext m ess age to o ne o fhi s o w n custo m er s s aying, “H ow qu i ck can y ou get r i d ofahal fno bul l[ exple ti ve] obo ys ri ding m y [ exple ti ve] o n this o ne. ” The probati on o ffi ce r ’ s su m m ary a l so c ha r ac te r i ze s W ea ve ra s ca uti ous about del i ver i ng m etham phetam i ne and no tes that he a l way s ar ri ve d a t a r en dez vo us wi th o utthe meth

amphet ami ne and w en t ba ckf o ri t o nl y a fte rde ci di ng that eve ry thi ng wa s “ al lr i ght. ” Ap parently these f acts l ed the proba ti on offi cer to re com m end ( w i thout expla nat i o n) a 4

- l e v e l up wa r d a dj us t men t un de rU
. S. S
. G. § 3 B1. 1( a), wh i ch appli es to a defendant w ho was “an or gani zeror l eadero fa cri m i nalact i vi ty that i nvol ved five or m or e p ar tic ip an ts or w as oth er w ise ex te n siv e.” W ea ve ro bj ec te d t o the pr o po se d i nc r ea se, a nd a t se ntencing a dete cti ve w ho invest i gat ed the conspi ra cy tes ti fi ed about W eave r’ s ro l e. The detect ive exp l ai ned th at W eave rha d o ffer ed to s uppl y W i l k eywi thmeth

am phetam i ne afterl earni ng t h at W i l keywas dis sat i sf i e d wi th hi s c ur r e nts o ur c e . T he de t e c t i v e de s c ribed W ea ve r ’ s r o l e as “ settin g the s pee d” o fthe di st r ibuti on byo ften decl i ni ng to supply W i l key a n d D al e with m etham phetam i ne atthe p re ci se ti m es they w anted i t, se tt i ngde l i ve r i es o n s ho r t no ti ce , a nd o fte n s ho wi ng up l ate f orm eet i ngs. M or eov er, W eave r re fused to d eli ver d rugs anyw he re b u t a t W il key’s and Da le’ s hom es or to del i ver m or e than tw o ounces at a tim e. Yet o n cr oss - exam i nati on the dete cti ve conce ded that4 N o. 12

- 3324 W eave r did notco ntro lto wh om o r at w hat pr i ce W i l k e y a nd Da l e s o l d the drug s Wea v e rfr o nt e d. The distr ict co urt decl i ned to apply a 4

- l eve li ncre ase but di d asse ss 3 l eve l s under § 3 B1. 1( b) , wh i ch appli es to a de fen dan t wh o w as “a m an ag ero rs upe r vi so r(but not an o rg ani zero r l eader ) an d the cr i m i nalact i vi ty i nvol ved fi ve orm or e par ti ci pant s orwas otherwis e ex te ns i ve . ” The j udg e ex pl aine d hi s dec i si o n: H er e Ifi nd th at he c l ea r l y di d e xe r ci se de ci si o nm aking autho ri ty w i th r espectto t h e acti vi ty of th e co ns pi racy. He de te r m i ne d ho w m ucha nd h ow o ften M r. W i l keyand M s. Dal e would r ecei ve m ethamph e t a mi ne , r e g a r dl e s s o f whe the r they needed i t qui ckertha n h e was wil l i ng to pro vi de. I n fac t, h e o ften g ave them j ust m i nutes no ti ce o f the dr opoffatthei r re si dences. I n a ddi ti o n, hi s par ti ci pat i o n in pl anni nga nd o r g an i zi ng was e x te nsi ve. H e was al w ays , as st ate d by th e con fi d en tial in form an t, at th e residen ce w he re the t ra nsacti ons too k pl ace ear l y o n. H e was al so c ar efu l in p lan n in g t h e d el i v e r y of m et h . H e w ou ld r e p e a t e d l y a r r i v e a t a l o c a t i o n wi th o u t th e me th a mp h et am in e to m ak e su re ev er yt h in g see m e d all r i g ht

. The n h e woul d l ea ve a nd r etur n wi ththe meth

. I t appe ar s th athi s par ti cipati o n was s o m ewha t ex ten sive. H e had be en di str ibuti ng to [ W i l key ] f or tw o yea rs and to Dal e s i nce M ay of20 11. I t’ s a l so apparent he exer ci sed a d eg ree o fco ntro l ove r the o therpart i ci pan ts i n the cri m i nalact i vi ty.N o. 12

- 3324 5 H e di rec ted W i l keyto ensur e the ti m el y r etur n of d ru g p ro c ee d s, an d h e p r e ss u re d W ilke y a n d D ale to sel lthe m etham phetam i ne pro m ptl y. M r. W i l key ’ s t ext m es sag e i s a notherexam ple o f the c on tr ol he exer ted. In a t ext t o one ofthes e custom ers, M r. W il key w rot e t h at you , W eave r, w ere p ut ting p ressu re on h im ; and he ex p ressed a des ire to sel lthe m eth qui ckl y du e t o the pr ess ure he was feeling from M r. W eave r. I find an d I ag re e w it h t h e a rg u m en t, M r. B ald w in [ defe nse c ounsel ] thati t ap pears thathe di d not necess ar i l y dete rm i ne the pri ce. H e was notenga ged a cti vel y in the re crui tm ent o f ot h er d ist rib u to rs . . . . I d o b elie ve th at th e e n h an c em en t is ap p ro p ria te in thi s ca se. Iam r el uctant, however, to fi nd that M r. W eave r w as a leader oro rg ani zer . Ifeelthat m ore ap p rop riately, he w as a m an ager or sup ervisor. The c o ur t ca l cul at ed a to ta lo ff en se l ev elo f3 8, whi ch, c om b in ed w ith W ea ve r’s cr i m i n al h ist or y c at eg or y of I, yi el ded a n i mpr i s o nme ntr a ng e o f2 3 5 t o 2 9 3 mo nths

. The cour t s el ec ted 23 5 m onths, wellabo ve the 1 0- yea r st at u to ry m in im u m . See21 U
. S. C
. § 841(b)(1) (A )( vii i)
. A de fend an t w ho is an o r g a n iz er or l ead er of a cri m i nalact i vi ty i nvol vi ng fi ve orm or e par ti ci pants g ets a 4

- l eve lupw ar d adj ustm ent; a m anage r orsuperv i sor r e c e i v e s a 3

- l e v e li n c r e a s e . U. S
. S
. G. § 3 B 1
. 1 ( a ) , ( b)

. At th e cr ux o fthi s di st i nc ti o n a nd a t the b as e o fthe r a t i o n a l e f o rth i s e n h a n c e me n ts i t s th e r e l a t i v e c ul p-6 N o. 12

- 3324

Likew is e, because G uideli ne 3B1.1 is all abou t th e c ulpa- 1 bili ty ofone parti ci pant in the cr im inal ent erpri se re la t i ve to the cu lp ab ility of oth er par ticip an ts in th e sche m e, i f all p articipant s i n the crim i nale nt er pri s e ar e equal l y c ul pabl e, no ne re ce iv e t h e en h a n ce m en t. SeeUn i t ed Sta t es v. M ust re ad, 42 F .3d 10 9 7, 11 0 3 (7t h C ir . 19 9 4 ). abi l i ty ofea ch part i ci pant in the cr i m i nalente rpri se: th o se who a r e m o r e cul pab l e ought t o r ec ei ve the hars her or ganize r/l eaderenhancem ent, wh i l e those with l ess ercul pabi l i ty and res pons ibility r ecei ve the l ess er en h an c em en t im p os ed on m an ag er s/ s u p er vis or s. See U ni t e d S t at es v. Reynol ds , N o. 12

- 1206 , 20 13 W L 18912 94, at * 3 ( 7t h C i r. M ay 8, 20 13) ( ci ti ng U ni t e d S t at e s v. M e ndoz a , 57 6 F
. 3d 711, 717 (7th Cir
. 2009) )
. A nd those w i th the l eas t rela ti ve cul pabi l i ty re cei ve no e nhancem ent a t a l l

. A s Un i t e d S t a t e s v . G r a h a m ex p lain ed , “§ 3 B 1.1
. . . 1 cr ea te s three r el ev an t ti er s f o rc o ns pi r ac i es tha t ar e ‘ ex te ns i ve ’: a t i erf o rl ea der s an d o r g an i ze r s, a t i erf o rmanage rs a n d s up er vi sor s, and a t i erf orev er yone el se. ” 1 62 F.3 d 11 80 , 118 5 (D .C . C ir. 19 98 ); s e eal s o U nited Sta t e s v. A lbers , 93 F. 3d 14 69, 14 88 ( 10th Cir
. 19 96) ( “[ T]he gr avam eno f[ Gui del i ne 3 B1. 1] i s contr o l, o r g an i za ti o n, a nd re sponsibi l i ty f orthe acti ons ofo ther s[
. ] ”)
. In shor t, r el ati ve cul pabi l i ty i s a “ce ntra l co ncer n” o fGuidel i ne 3B1. 1. M e ndoz a , 57 6 F
. 3d at 717. W eave r does not d ispute that th e co nsp i r ac y i nv o l ve d fi ve o rmor e par ti ci pan ts
. But he doe s argu e tha t he w as no t a m an ager or sup ervisor. T h e G u id elin es d o n otd efin e “ or ga n ize r,” “ lea d er ,” “m anage r, ” o r “superv i sor . ” Ap pli cati on N ote 4 does, ho wev er, l i stthe f ac to r s co urts s ho ul d c o ns i deri n di st i n-N o. 12

- 3324 7

T h e s e v e n f a c t o r s a r e : ( 1 ) th e e x e r c i s e o fd e c i s i o n - mak i ng 2 author i t y; ( 2) the na t ur e ofpar t i c ip at i on i n the c om m i s s i on of th e offe ns e ; ( 3 ) the r e c r ui t m e nt of a c c ompl i c e s ; ( 4 ) the cl aim ed ri ght to a l arger s hare ofthe fruit s ofthe crim e; ( 5) the degree ofpar t i c i pation i n pl ann i ng o r or gan i zi ng the offen s e; ( 6) the nature and sc ope of th e ill egal ac ti vity; and (7) the degree of con tro l or au tho rity exercised ov er o the rs. g ui sh i ngb etwee n a n o r gan i ze r/ l ea dero n the o ne ha nd an d a m an ager/su p ervisor on the other. See U nited Sta tes 2 v. Figue r oa , 68 2 F. 3d 694, 69 7 ( 7th Ci r. 20 12)
. A l though N o te 4 o ffer ed th es e f ac to r s to di st i ng ui sh betw een organi zer s/l eader s a nd m anage rs /s up er vi sor s, we have, i n the past, co nsul ted the se factors to deci de w hether Gu i d e l i n e 3 B 1
. 1 a p p l i e s i n th e fi r s tp l a c e . T h u s , we have used the f ac tors to dist i ngui sh be tw een l ow-l eve l parti ci pants und ese rv i ng of any enhancem ent w hatso

eve r and m anage rs /su p ervi sor s worthy o fthe 3- l eve l en h an c em en t. SeeU nite d States v. How el l , 52 7 F
. 3d 646, 64 9 (7 th C ir. 20 08 ); U ni t e d S ta t e s v. M us t r e ad, 42 F. 3d 1097, 1104 (7th Cir. 1994). U ni t e d Sta tes v. Figue r oa foun d resort to these f acto rs un ne cess ary : “ I fa j udg e, a pr o ba ti o n o ffi ce r, a l awy er, eve n a defendant, does n’tk now wh at a ‘ m anage r’ o r ‘su p er vis o r ’ is, A p p lica tio n N ot e 4 isn ’t g oin g t o h elp h im

— esp eciall y sin ce it’s abou t organizers an d l ead ers a nd not m idd le m an agers a n d l ow -l evel sup ervisors[. ]” 682 F. 3d at 697 . T h us, m or e r ecent l y, we have s ai d that “a m an ag er or s u p e r vis or sh ou ld be st ra igh tfo rw ar d ly und er sto od as si m plyso m eone wh o hel ps m anage o r supervi se a cri m i n al s c hem e. ” U ni t e d S t at e s v. Gr igs b y,8 N o. 12

- 3324 69 2 F.3d 77 8, 79 0 (7 th C ir. 20 12 ); see U nited Sta tes v. C o llins,

___ F
. 3 d

___, 2 0 1 3 W L 1 9 7 9 1 2 9 , a t * 6 ( 7 th Ci r . M ay 15, 20 13 ); U nite d States v. B enne tt, 708 F.3d 8 7 9 , 8 92 (7th C ir. 20 13 ); Figue r oa , 68 2 F
. 3d at 697 ( fi nd i ng no need “t o w orry, . . . w he th er a de fen d an t given [the m an ager/ supervi sor ] enhancem ent .
. . ‘exer ci sed so m e co ntro lo ver othe rs ’ o r al ternati vel y ‘ pla yed a coo rdi nati ng o r or gani zing rol e.’ ”). Th at d oes not m ean, h ow ever, that th e factors i n Appl i ca ti o n Not e 4 ar e no t i ns truct i ve . To the e xt en t thos e f acto rs hel p to “st ra i ghtf or w ar dly ” i denti fy whether a defend an t “ hel ps m anage o r supervi se a cr i m i nal schem e, ” co urts m ay contin ue to co nsi der them

. A pp l i cation N ote 4 sim p ly recogn izes that organ izers /l ead ers w i l l ex hib i tmo r e o ftho s e f a c t o r s a nd t o a g r e a t e rde gr ee th an a l ower- l eve lm anage r/ supervi sor . A nd al though i t do es no t l ab elthe f ac to r s i r r el ev an t t o the manage r/ supervi sordeci si on, nei therdoes § 3B1. 1 require the pr ese nce o fany one ofthe f acto rs as a prer equis ite to im p os in g th e m an ag er /s u p er vis or en h an c em en t. See B enne tt, 70 8 F
. 3d at 891; Figue r oa , 68 2 F .3d a t 697; M us t r e ad, 42 F. 3d at 1104 n
. 3 (find ing “slavish ad he rence to [ the Ap pli cati on N ote 4 f acto rs ] un n ec es sar y: th e ul ti m at e que st i o n i s what r el at i ve r o l e th e de fen dan t p layed ”). S o was W ea ve ra mana g er or supe r vi so r ? I n a dva nc i ng that he was, the gover nm ent r el i es heavi l y o n the sugg es ti o n tha t W ea ve re xe r ci se d de ci si o n- m ak i nga uth o r i tya nd c o nt r o l over W i l k eya nd Da l e bydi ct at i ng when, ho w ofte n, a nd h ow much metha m phe ta m i ne W ilke y a n d D ale w ou ld rec eiv e. Se eU ni t e d S t at e s v. Sl ade, 6 31 F. 3d 18 5, 1 90 ( 4th Ci r . 2 01 1) ( apply i ngmanag er/ su per vi so re nha nc ementwh ende fen dan t “c o n-N o. 12

- 3324 9 tr o l l ed th e ac ti vi ti es o fo th erpa r ti ci pan ts”)
. In e va l uating wh ethera defe nd ant’ s co ntro land authority o ver othe rs m er i ts the 3

- l eve lm anage r/ supervi sorenhancem ent, di str i ct c ourt s s houl d m ake a com m onsense j ud gm ent about the defendant’s r el ati ve cul pabi l i ty gi ven hi s s tatus i n the cri m i nalhi er ar c h y. SeeGr aham , 16 2 F. 3d at 1185 ( “W hen confro n te d w i th a heavi l y s tr ati fi ed c o ns pi r a c y, a c o ur tmus ts up e r i mpo s e the [ thr e e - t i e r e d] § 3B1
. 1 fr amewor ko ve rthe o r g an iz at i o na lc ha r t o fthe c o ns pi r a c y a nd , u s i ngthe f a c t o r s n o t e d ab o v e , de c i de wher e to dr aw th e two r el ev an t l i ne s th atde termi ne w ho q ua li fi es for a § 3B 1.1 enh an cem en t.”)
. Forpurposes o f§ 3B1. 1 then, a defe nd ant e xerci ses c on tr ol an d au th or ity ov er a n ot h er w h en h e “ te lls p eo p le w hat to do and det er m i nes w hether they’ ve done it.” Figue r oa , 682 F.3d at69 7; ac co r d U ni t e d St at e s v. Ri ch ar ds , 19 8 F. 3d 1029 , 10 34 ( 7th Ci r. 20 00) ( fi nd i ng “a t l eas t ind i re ct contr olo ver[ othe rs ]
. . . as theydi d w h at [ defe nd ant] want ed, w he n [ defen dan t] want ed i t an d wher e [ defen d an t] w an te d it d on e” ); U nite d States v. R o be rts , 14 F. 3d 50 2, 52 3 ( 10 th Ci r . 19 93 ) ( r efus i ng to ap p ly enha nc ement i n the abse nce o f“e vi dence ofdeci si on- m aking autho ri ty orco ntro lo vera subor dinat e”)
. Thi s e xerci se ofco ntro l and author i ty w i l lu su al l y a l l ow the defendant to i m po se s o m e sa nc ti o n, r ewa r d, o rpuni sh m en t f o rthe unde r l i ng ’ s ex ec ution o fthe di r ec te d t as k

. Thu s, the abi l i ty to coe rce underl i ngs i s a ke y ind i cato r ofco ntro l or auth ority sugges tive of m a na gerialor su p ervisory re sp on sib ility in th e c rim in al e n te rp ris e. SeeBennett, 708 F. 3d at 892 ( “A l though m ostsuperv i sor s do not terrorize their subord inates ( at least not p hy sicall y),10 N o. 12

- 3324 admi ni st er i ngs an ct i o ns f o rpo o rwork qu al i tyi s a qui ntes senti alsuperv i sory t ask

. ”)
. M or eov er, the i m portan ce ofco er ci on s ugge st s that a n und er l i ng’ s ind ependence from the d efend an t can un d erm in e the gove rnm en t’s su gg es tio n of co n tr ol. Se eM us t re ad, 42 F
. 3d at 1105 ( “But Figueroa w as on e of M us tread ’s ind ep en d en t sup p li ers and co- conspi ra tor s; he was nev erat[ the defend ant’ s] be cka nd c al l

. ”)
. Thu s, whil e a llpa r ti ci pan ts i n the c r i mi n a la c t i v i t y n e e d n o tb e me mb e r s o fth e s a me street gan g, crew , or form all y organized crim inal enterpr i se, so m e hi er ar ch y a m o ngtho se i nv o l ve d i n the cri m i nalact i vi ty m ust ex ist t o quali fy a defendant f oran enha nc ementunde r§ 3 B1. 1. F i na l l y, the e nha nc em en t re quir es ongo i ng super vi si on, nota o ne- offr equest fro m one e qu a lt o a no the rdu r i ngthe c o ur s e o fthe c r i minal ac tiv ity
. Figue r oa , 6 82 F. 3d at 697- 98 ( “Because to be a ‘m an ag er ’ or ‘s u p er vis or ’ is to oc c u p y a role

— to have a st atus

— case s di stingui sh be tw een o ngoing super vi si on and m er el y a sking a coco nspir ato r on o ne o ccasi on t o d o som eth ing.” ( citations om itted ))
. W ea ve rpr o vi ded i ns uffi ci en t o ng o i ngs upe r vi si o n a nd c o e r ci v e a u th o r i t y t o wa r r a n tth e e n h a n c e me n t
. He si m plyfro nted m etham p hetam i ne to W i l keyand Dal e, urging the m to se l l it q u ickl y a nd pay hi m . Yet “[s ]u p p lyin g d ru gs an d n eg ot iat in g th e ter m s o ft h e ir sal e do not by them sel ves j usti fy a S ection 3 B 1.1 i ncre ase , f o r th e s e th i n g s d o n o ti n d i c a t e th a tth e p e r s o n wh o does them has a g re ate r degre e o fr esponsibi l i ty f or pu tting to gether th e d rug oper ati on o r a par ti cul ar d ea l th an an yo n e e lse i n vo lve d , in c lu d in g t h e c u st om er .” U nited Sta tes v. Va rga s, 16 F.3d 15 5 , 1 6 0 ( 7th Cir. 1994);N o. 12

- 3324 11

see a lso U nited Sta te s v . P a g a n, 196 F.3d 884, 892 (7th Cir. 1999 ); M u s t r ead, 42 F.3d at11 04 ; U ni t e d S t at e s v. Br own, 94 4 F .2d 13 77, 138 1 (7 th C ir. 19 91 ); U ni t e d Stat e s v. Thom pson , 944 F. 2d 1331 , 13 49 ( 7th Ci r. 19 91)
. Ind eed, a bor ro w er w ou ld n ot descr ibe he r l oan offi ceras her“m anage r” o r “sup er vi sor ” s i m plybec ause the l oan offi ceri m poses a c r e d i tl i mi t, d i c t a t e s the i nt e r e s tr a t e a n d l o a n t e r m, advert i ses f orcusto m er s, and re fuses to be a vai l abl e o n w eek en d s. I n thi s s ense, W eave r w as no di ffer ent than an y o the rb us i ne s s tha te xt e nd s c r e di tt o c us t o m er s: he e nc o ur a g e d b e ha v i o rtha two ul d p r o t e c th i s i nv est
me n ta n d i n s u r e p a y me n to fth e d e b to we d t o h i m. The dis tr i ct c ourt d eem ed i t s i gni fi cant that W eave r w as cau tious and budged l i ttl e o n m att er s s uch as pri ce, del i ver y point, and quanti ty. Ind eed, W eave r som et i m es kept hi s cust om er s wai ti ng and eve n deci ded at tim es not to hon or their re qu ests for spec ific delivery tim es. Butno ne o ftha t m ak es hi m a mana g ero rsup ervis or of h is c u st om er s. H e d i d n otte ll W ilke y or D ale w hat pr i ce they had to char ge thei r custo m er s, o r i m pose ter ri tor i all i m i ts on the i r sal es, o r setdi str ibuti on quota s. And pr es um ab l y, i fW i l k eya nd Da l e di d no t r es el lthe produc t or sol d i t a t a l oss , theywould neve rthel ess re m ai n i nd ebte d t o W eave r at $1, 700 per ounce. A m anage r orsuperv i sori n a drugdeal i ng ent er pri se ( though he m ay su re l y m ete o ut so m e punis hm ent for the l ow-l eve ldeal er s w ho per f or m ed i nadequ ate l y) w ou ld have t o eatthatl oss j ust a s a r eta i lst or e m anage r w ou ld assu m e the l o s s a rising from the p oor perfor m an c e o f a floo r sa les m an . Th e b e s t t h at ca n be sa id for ap p ly i n g th e in c re as e is th at W ea ve r ge n er ally12 N o. 12

- 3324 pu s he d h i s wa r e s a g g r e s s i v e l y a nd deman de d p r o mpt paym ent, tho ugh so m et i m es w oul d get l ow m ar ks f or cus to m ers er vi ce . W eaver ’ s i nt er es t i n a qui cktur narou nd , how ever, doesn ’t m ake W il key or Da le his un d erl i ng s ; a s the p r o b a t i o n o ffi c e ra pp e a r e d t o u nd e r sta nd, W ea ve rs i m pl y “ i ns truct ed th em to pr o m ptly sel l ” th e m etham phetam i ne “s o he co uld d i str ibute m or e t o them

. ” Tr yi ng to se l lm ore w h i l e g ett i ng pai d i s what m er c h an ts

— n otn ec es sa rily m an ag er s a n d su p er visors

— d o. See V

a rga s, 16 F.3d at16 0; Pagan, 19 6 F
. 3d at 89 3; M ustrea d, 42 F.3d at11 04 -05 ; U nited Sta tes v. Sa yles, 29 6 F .3d 21 9, 2 2 5 (4 th C ir. 20 02 ); U ni t e d S t at e s v. M e di na, 16 7 F.3d 77, 81 n .4 (1s t C ir . 1 9 9 9 ); U ni t e d S t at e s v. Tor oA gu ilera, 138 F.3d 340, 343 (8th Cir. 1998). F o rthe se s ame r ea so ns , ne i th erdo es the g o ve r nm ent’ s s ugges ti on that W eave r re crui ted W i l keyi nto the c onspi ra cy w ar ra nt appli cati on o fthe en hancem ent. The e vi dence su gge st s o nl y tha t W ea ve ra nd hi s co - co nspi ra tor s h ad n othing m or e than a m er chant- custo m er r el at i o ns hi p. Al lW ea ve rdi d thr o ug h W i l k ey ’ s i nc l usio n w as so licita n ew cu st om er for h is ow n w h ole sa le drug d ealing. W eave r did notst ra ti fy hi s drug or gani zati on by “hi ring” W i l key as an und er l i ng ove r w hom W ea ve r ex er c ise d m an ag er ial or su p er vis or y c on tr ol. I n the e nd, the g o ve r nm en t di d no t o ffera ny evi dence that W eave r ass um ed quinte sse nti alm anage ri al orsuperv i sory t ask s o fthe type w e hav e con c lu ded w ar ra n t an inc re as e. See B enn ett, 708 F. 3d at 892 ( adm i ni ste rin g s a n c tio n s fo r p oo r p er for m an c e); G rigsby, 692 F. 3d at7 91 ( su per vi singa b an kr o bb ery fr o m o ut si de th eN o. 12

- 3324 13 b an k); Fig uero a, 682 F. 3d at 697 ( “tell [ i ng] peopl e what to d o a n d d et er m in [in g] w h et h er th ey ’v e d on e it ”). Forthes e r eas ons, we V ACATE th e j udg m en t an d R EMA ND the c ase f orr ese ntenci ng.

6- 3- 13