FI L ED
U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S

EL EVENTH CI RCUI T
J UL Y 6, 2011

J OHN L EY
CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

No. 1 0- 11 53 8

Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

D.C. Dock et No. 1 :0 8- cr-0 04 57 -CAP-GGB -3

UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A,

Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee,

ve rs us

EDGAR CAMACHO TORRES,

Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __
App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t for th e Nor th ern Dis tri ct of Ge or gi a

__

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __
(J ul y 6, 2 01 1)

Befo re TJ OFLAT, MARCUS an d F AY, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

PER CURI AM:

Edg ar Cam ach o Torr es a p p e a l s th e 23 5- m on th se nt en ce he rece iv ed fo r

co ns pi rin g to po ss es s wit h in te nt to di st rib ut e a t l e a st 5 ki lo gr am s of co cai nehydro ch lo rid e an d 50 0 gr am s of m et ha m ph et am in e, in vi ol at io n of 21 U.S.C. §§ 84 6,

84 1( b) (1 )(A)(i i) an d (v ii i). On ap pe al

, Cam ach o Torr es arg ue s th at th e di st ric t co ur t

cl earl y erre d in en ha nc in g hi s se nt en ce b as ed on hi s m an ag eri al rol e in th e of fen se ,

pu rs ua nt to U.S.S.G. § 3 B1 .1(b ). After th or ou gh rev ie w, we affi rm

.

“ A de fen da nt ’s ro le as an or ga ni zer or le ad er is a fact ua l fin di ng th at we rev ie w

fo r cl ear erro r to de te rm in e if th e en ha nc em en t un de r § 3B 1.1 was ap pl ie d

ap pr op ria te ly.” U ni te d S ta te s v . Ram ire z, 42 6 F .3d 13 44 , 13 55 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ).

Und er § 3B 1.1 of th e Gui de li ne s, a de fen da nt rece iv es a fo ur

- l e v e l

en ha nc em en t fo r pa rti ci pa ti on as an “ or ga ni zer or le ad er” of a cri m in al act iv it y “ th at

in vo lv ed fiv e or m or e pa rti ci pa nt s or was ot he rwis e ex te ns iv e,” an d a th ree- le ve l

en ha nc em en t fo r pa rti ci pa ti on as a “ m an ag er or su pe rv is or ” of su ch a cri m in al

act iv it y

. U.S.S.G. § 3B 1.1 (a) an d (b ). W hi le th e in st an t cas e co nc e r n s t he

ap pl ic ab il it y of a m an ag eri al or su pe rv is or y ro le en ha nc em en t, th e co m m en ta ry to §

3B 1.1 se ts fo rth th e fact or s to be co ns id ered by a di st ric t co ur t “ [i]n di st in gu is hi ng a

le ad ers hi p an d or ga ni zat io na l ro le fro m on e of m ere m an ag em en t or su pe rv is io n,” as

fo ll ows :

th e ex erci se of de ci si on m ak in g au th or it y , th e na tu re of pa rti ci pa ti on in

t he co m m is si on of th e of

fen se , th e recr ui tm en t of acco m pl ic e s , t h e

c la im ed rig ht to a la rg er sh are of th e fru it s of th e cri m e, th e d e g r e e o f

pa rti ci pa ti on in pl an ni ng or or ga ni zi ng th e of fen se , th e na tu re an d sc op e

2of th e il le ga l act iv it y , an d th e de gr ee of co nt ro l an d au th or it y ex erci se d

ov er o th ers

.

U.S.S.G. § 3B 1.1

, co m

m en t. (n .4). The go ve rn m en t m us t pr ov e th e ex is te nc e of a

le ad ers hi p ro le by a pr ep on de ran ce of th e ev id en ce. Uni te d St at es v. Yate s, 99 0 F.2 d

11 79

, 11 82 (1 1t h Ci r. 19 93 ). Th e g u i d el in e co m m en ta ry fu rth er pr ov id es th at th e

de fen da nt wil l qu al ify fo r th e en ha nc em en t if he was “ th e or ga ni zer, le ad er, m an ag er,

or su pe rv is or of on e or m or e ot he r pa rti ci pa nt s.” U.S.S.G. § 3B 1.1

, co m m en t. (n .2).

W e ha ve de te rm in ed th at a de fen da nt ’s su bo rd in at e ro le to an ot he r co ns pi rat or do es

no t ab so lv e hi m of hi s su pe rv is or y ro le in c o o r d i n a t in g an d m an ag in g th e de li ve ry

an d tra ns po rta ti on of a dr ug sh ip m en t. Uni te d St at es v. Jo ne s, 93 3 F.2 d 15 41

, 15 42

,

15 46 -4 7 (1 1t h Ci r. 19 91 ) (u ph ol di ng a § 3B 1.1 (b ) en ha nc em en t whe re th e ev id en ce

sh owe d th at th e de fen da nt he lp ed ot he r pa rti ci pa nt s “ pl an th e op erat io na l as pe ct s of

th e [d ru g] sm

ug gl in g effo rt,” an d m ad e vari ou s un il at eral de ci si on s reg ard in g la nd in g

an d l oa di ng lo cat io ns an d t he ti m in g o f th e smugg li ng tri ps ).

Mo reo ve r, we ha ve up he ld a § 3B 1.1 (b ) e n h a n cem en t whe re th e ev id en ce at

tri al sh owe d th at th e de fen da nt fro nt ed co cai ne on cred it an d ret ai ne d th e r e su lt in g

pr of it s. Uni te d St at es v. Mat th ews , 1 68 F.3 d 12 34 , 12 50 (11 th Cir . 19 99 ); se e al so

Uni te d St at es v. Howar d, 92 3 F.2 d 15 00

, 15 03 (1 1t h Ci r. 1 9 9 1 ) ( u p ho ld in g a §

3B 1.1 (b ) en ha nc em en t be cau se t h e ev id en ce sh owe d th at th e de fen da nt fro nt ed

3co cai ne to an ot he r in di vi du al an d, in do in g so , ret ai ne d at leas t con st ru ct iv e co nt ro l

ov er th at in di vi du al ). Bu t se e Uni te d St at es v. Alre d, 14 4 F.3 d 14 05

, 14 21 -2 2 & n.1 8

(1 1t h Ci r. 19 98 ) (d is ti ng ui sh in g Howar d as in vo lv in g di rect co nt ro l by th e co nv ic te d

de fen da nt an d ho ld in g th at th e d i s t r i c t c o ur t cl earl y erre d in ap pl y in g a § 3B 1.1 (a)

ro le en ha nc em en t ba se d on ev id en ce of a bu y er-s el le r an d an at te nu at ed fro nt in g

rel at io ns hi p) ; Yate s, 99 0 F.2 d at 11 81 -8 2 (h ol di ng th at th e de fen da nt was no t su bjec t

to a ro le en ha nc em en t un de r § 3 B 1

. 1 ( a ) be cau se th e ev id en ce sh owe d on ly th at he

en ga ge d in a se ll er-b uyer rel at io ns hi p wit h th e ot he r pa rti ci pa nt s)

. Als o, th e

ad jus tm en t m ay

be ap pl ie d to bo th m em

be rs of a two -p art ic ip an t co ns pi racy “ whe n

each pa rti ci pa nt ta ke s pr im ary res po ns ib il it y fo r a di st in ct co m po ne nt of th e pl an an d

ex erci se s co nt ro l o r in flu en ce o ve r th e ot he r pa rti ci pa nt wit h resp ect to th at di st in ct

co m p o n en t of th e pl an .” Uni te d St at es v. Yeag er, 33 1 F.3 d 12 16

, 12 27 (1 1t h Ci r.

20 03 ).

In Uni te d St at es v. Mar ti ne z, th e di st ric t co ur t im po se d a le a de rs hi p- ro le

en ha nc em en t, pu rs ua nt to U.S.S.G. § 3B 1.1 (a), on a de fen da nt who ad m it te d du rin g

hi s pl ea co ll oq uy th at he or ch es tra te d week ly sh ip m en ts of m ai l pa rcel s co nt ai ni ng

m ari juan a, ut il iz ed ot he r in di vi du al s to m ai l or rece iv e th e pa ck ag es , an d pa rti ci pa te d

in a wire tra ns fer of th e dr ug pr oc eed s. 58 4 F.3 d 10 22

, 10 24 -2 5 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 09 ). On

ap p e a l

, we he ld th at th e di st ric t co ur t cl earl y erre d in im po si ng th e § 3B 1.1 (a)

4en ha nc em en t b ecau se th e d efen da nt ’s adm is si on s were in su ffi ci en t t o e st ab li sh an y

of th e fact or s id en ti fie d in no te 4 of th e co m m en ta ry to § 3B 1.1

. Id

. at 10 26 -2 8. W it h

res pe ct to th e de fen da nt ’s ad m is si on s, we he ld th at th e te rm “ or ch es tra te ” m ean t “ no

m or e th an to or ga ni ze or co or di na te a pa rti cu la r tra ns act i o n,” an d th us , th e pe rs on

who or ch es tra te d th e week ly sh ip m en ts co ul d ha ve be en “ a su bo rd in at e ch arg ed wit h

de al in g wit h th e rel at iv el y m in or de ta il s of co m pl et in g th at tra ns act io n.” Id

. at 10 28

.

W e fu rth er he ld th at th e de fen da nt ’s u s e o f o t h ers on ly rev eal ed th at he act ed in

co nc ert wit h ot he rs to sh ip th e pa rcel s, tra ns fer m on ey , an d co nc eal th e co ns pi racy.

Id

.

Here, th e di s t r i c t c o ur t di d no t cl earl y err in ap pl y in g th e § 3B 1.1 (b )

en ha nc em en t to Cam ach o Torr es ’s se nt en ce. Alt ho ug h Cam ach o Torr es ob jecte d to

th e fact ua l al le ga ti on s co nc ern in g hi s in vo lv em en t in th e Mar ch 20 07 m ari juan a

tra ns act io n, he di d no t di sp ut e th at he was a m id -le ve l di st rib ut or who rece iv ed dr ug s

fro m a Mex ic an so ur ce an d, in tu rn , su pp li ed dr ug s to nu m ero us l o w er-l ev el

di st rib ut or s. W e reco gn iz e th at st an di ng al on e, Cam ach o Torr es ’s ro le as a m id -le ve l

di st rib u t o r i s i ns uf

fic ie nt to warra nt th e § 3B 1.1 (b ) en ha nc em en t. See Yate s, 99 0

F.2 d at 11 81 -8 2 (h ol di ng th at a bu y er-s el le r rel at io ns hi p was in su ffi ci en t to su pp or t

a § 3B 1.1 (a) en ha nc em en t); Mar ti ne z, 58 4 F.3 d at 10 26 -2 8 (h ol di ng th at th e di st ric t

co ur t cl earl y erre d in ap pl y in g a § 3B 1.1 (a) en ha nc em en t be cau se th e de fen da nt

5di sp ut ed th e fac tu al all eg at io ns in th e PSI a nd hi s ad m is si on at hi s pl ea co ll oq uy t o

“ or c h e s t r a t[i ng ]” dr ug sh ip m en ts was in su ffi ci en t, wit ho ut m or e, to su pp or t th e

en ha nc em en t).

H owe ve r, Cam ach o Torr es ’s ad m is si on s du rin g hi s pl ea co ll oq uy a n d t h e

tra ns cri pt s of in te rcep te d co nv ers at io ns su bm it te d a t t h e se nt en ci ng he ari ng

de m on st r a t e t ha t Cam ach o Torr es di rect ed th e act iv it ie s of an in di vi du al kn own as

“ Ch ap pa rro ,” in fu rth eran ce of th e Mar ch 20 07 m ari juan a tra ns act io n. See Jo ne s, 93 3

F.3 d at 15 46 -4 7. Sp eci fic al ly, Cam ach o Torr es fro nt ed co cai ne to Ch ap pa rro

. W he n

th e co cai ne was st ol en , he an d Ch ap pa rro de vi se d a pl an to co ve r th e lo ss by se ll in g

m ari juan a. In fu rth eran ce of th at pl an , Cam ach o Torr es arra ng ed fo r th e de li ve ry of

th e m ari juan a, to ld C h a p p a r r o w he re to pi ck up a sa m pl e of th e m ari

juan a, as ke d

Ch ap p a r ro to as se ss it s qu al it y , an d to ld Ch ap pa rro whe re to dr op it of f. Afte r

Ch ap pa rro de te rm in ed th at th e m ari juan a was of go od qu al it y , Cam ach o Torr es

arra ng ed for th e d el iv ery of 22 9 p ou nd s o f m ari

juan a.

Mo reo ve r, ev en if th e in te rcep te d co nv ers at io n s were refl ect iv e of a

co op erat iv e effo rt to sa ti sf y th e de bt du e a n in di vi du al id en ti fie d as “ Orejon ,” th e

di st ric t co ur t st il l di d no t cl earl y err in ap pl y in g th e § 3B 1.1 (b ) en ha nc em en t be cau se

Cam ach o Torr es di rect ed Ch ap pa rro to un de rta ke cert ai n ta sk s de si gn ed to fu rth er th e

cr i me. Yeag er, 33 1 F.3 d at 12 27

. Bas ed on th e di rect iv es Cam ach o Torr es ga ve

6Ch ap pa rro to fu rth er th e cri m e , t h ei r rel at io ns hi p wen t be y on d th at of bu y er an d

se ll er. Co m

pa re Alre d, 14 4 F.3 d at 14 21 -2 2 & n.1 8; Yate s, 99 0 F.2 d at 11 81 -8 2. It

is al so si gn ifi can t th at Cam ach o Torr es fro nt ed co cai ne to Ch ap p a r r o an d la te r

ex pe ct ed to rece iv e pr of it s fro m th e sa le of th e m ar i juan a to co m

pe ns at e fo r hi s

pe rs on al lo ss es on th e st ol en co cai ne

. Mat th ews , 16 8 F.3 d a t 1 25 0 (u ph ol di ng th e

en ha nc em en t whe re th e de fen da nt fro nt ed co cai ne to an ot he r in di vi du al an d ex pe ct ed

to rece iv e pr oc eed s fro m th e sa le of t h a t c o c a i ne ). Thu s, be cau se Cam ach o Torr es

fro nt ed co cai ne to Ch ap pa rro , di rect ed hi s act iv it ie s in fu rth eran ce of ob ta in in g th e

mar iju an a, an d ex pe ct ed to rece iv e th e pr of it s as so ci at ed wit h th e sa l e o f t h e

m ari juan a, th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t cl earl y err in a p p l yi n g th e § 3B 1.1 (b )

en ha nc em en t. Acco rd in gl y , we affi rm

.

AFFIRMED.

7