[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 12-16526

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 9:11-cr-80157-KLR-4

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

 versus

FRANK DEFILIPPO, 

 Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

________________________

(January 7, 2015)

Before WILLIAM PRYOR, MARTIN, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Frank Defilippo appeals his 151-month sentence, imposed after he pled 

Case: 12-16526 Date Filed: 01/07/2015 Page: 1 of 6 
2

guilty without a plea agreement to one count of conspiracy to commit mail and 

wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1349. On appeal, Defilippo argues that the 

district court clearly erred in assigning him a four-level enhancement for being an 

organizer of the scheme because the district court relied solely on Defilippo’s 

factual proffer. He further contends that his sentence was substantively 

unreasonable because the district court failed to adequately address his background 

and mental health factors when imposing sentence and also because his sentence 

was disparate from his co-conspirators’ sentences. 

I.

We review a district court’s factual finding of the defendant’s role for clear 

error to determine if the enhancement under § 3B1.1 was applied appropriately. 

United States v. De Varon, 175 F.3d 930, 937 (11th Cir. 1999) (en banc). “A 

factual finding is clearly erroneous when . . . the reviewing court . . . is left with the 

definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” United States v. 

Gupta, 572 F.3d 878, 887 (11th Cir. 2009) (quotation omitted). There is no clear 

error in cases where the record supports the district court’s findings. United States 

v. Petrie, 302 F.3d 1280, 1290 (11th Cir. 2002).

“The burden of establishing evidence of the facts necessary to support a 

sentencing enhancement falls on the government, and it must do so by a 

Case: 12-16526 Date Filed: 01/07/2015 Page: 2 of 6 
3

preponderance of the evidence.” United States v. Perez-Oliveros, 479 F.3d 779, 

783 (11th Cir. 2007). Findings of fact by a sentencing court may be based on, 

among other things, “facts admitted by a defendant’s plea of guilty . . . .” United 

States v. Wilson, 884 F.2d 1355, 1356 (11th Cir. 1989); see also United States v. 

Smith, 480 F.3d 1277, 1281 (11th Cir. 2007) (facts contained in a government 

proffer not objected to at a plea colloquy are deemed admitted and may be used to 

enhance a sentence). 

Section 3B1.1(a) provides for a four-level enhancement “[i]f the defendant 

was an organizer or leader of a criminal activity that involved five or more 

participants or was otherwise extensive.” U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(a). In assessing a 

defendant’s role in the offense, the factors the courts should consider include:

the 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. 

U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1, cmt. n.4; United States v. Esquenazi, 752 F.3d 912, 938 (11th 

Cir. 2014). More than one person can qualify as an organizer or leader of a 

criminal conspiracy. U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1 cmt. n.4; Esquenazi, 752 F.3d at 938. 

The district court did not clearly err in applying a § 3B1.1(a) role 

enhancement to Defilippo. Unobjected-to facts in the factual proffer established 

that Defilippo, with another conspirator, Tim Owens, organized and operated the 

Case: 12-16526 Date Filed: 01/07/2015 Page: 3 of 6 
4

boiler room scheme, which was at all times under their control, that they split 

between them the greater share of the profits from the scheme, and that Defilippo

directly recruited others into the scheme to solicit victims. That Defilippo shared 

the role of leader in the conspiracy with Owens does not shield him from the 

leader/organizer enhancement. See Esquenazi, 752 F.3d at 938. Accordingly, the 

record supports the district court’s decision to apply an enhancement under 

§ 3B1.1(a) for playing a leader or organizer role in the conspiracy. Petrie, 302 

F.3d at 1290.

II.

The district court must issue a sentence “sufficient, but not greater than 

necessary” to comply with the purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2). 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3553(a). These purposes include the need for a sentence to reflect the 

seriousness of the offense, promote respect for the law, provide just punishment for 

the offender, deter criminal conduct, and protect the public from future criminal 

conduct. Id. § 3553(a)(2). Additional considerations include the nature and 

circumstances of the offense, the history and characteristics of the defendant, the 

applicable guideline range, and the pertinent policy statements of the Sentencing 

Commission. Id. § 3553(a)(1), (3)–(7). 

Section 3553(a)(6) provides that one factor a district court is to consider in 

imposing sentence is “the need to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities among 

Case: 12-16526 Date Filed: 01/07/2015 Page: 4 of 6 
5

defendants with similar records who have been found guilty of similar conduct.” 

18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(6). For a substantive unreasonableness claim based on a 

sentencing disparity, we require that the defendant raising the claim be similarly 

situated to those who received lesser sentences. United States v. Docampo, 573 

F.3d 1091, 1101 (11th Cir. 2009). Defendants who cooperate with the government 

are not similarly situated to those who do not. See id. 

When reviewing for substantive reasonableness, we consider the totality of 

the facts and circumstances in evaluating whether the sentence lies outside the 

range of reasonable sentences dictated by the facts of the case. United States v. 

Irey, 612 F.3d 1160, 1189-1190 (11th Cir. 2010) (en banc). The weight to be 

accorded any given § 3553(a) factor is a matter committed to the sound discretion 

of the district court. United States v. Amedeo, 487 F.3d 823, 832 (11th Cir. 2007). 

Although we do not automatically presume a sentence within the guideline range 

to be reasonable, we ordinarily expect such a sentence to be reasonable. United 

States v. Hunt, 526 F.3d 739, 746 (11th Cir. 2008). A sentence well below the 

statutory maximum sentence also signals reasonableness. See United States v. 

Gonzalez, 550 F.3d 1319, 1324 (11th Cir. 2008). 

Defilippo was a leader and organizer of the conspiracy, and his 151-month 

sentence is at the lowest end of his advisory guidelines range and well below the 

20-year statutory maximum. See Hunt, 526 F.3d at 746; Gonzalez, 550 F.3d at 

Case: 12-16526 Date Filed: 01/07/2015 Page: 5 of 6 
6

1324. The district court considered Defilippo’s service as a police officer, his 

service-related trauma, and his post-traumatic stress disorder, but nevertheless 

concluded that under the circumstances and given the nature and circumstances of 

the offense—a well-planned scheme targeting vulnerable victims—a guidelinesrange sentence was appropriate. In light of the totality of the circumstances, 

Defilippo has not met his burden of showing that his 151-month, low guidelines

sentence represents a clear error of judgment and is outside the range of reasonable 

sentences. See Irey, 612 F.3d 1189-1190. Nor is the disparity between his and his 

co-conspirators’ sentences unwarranted because he was not similarly situated to 

them. Docampo, 573 at 1101. Defilippo was the organizer of the scheme, and 

unlike his co-conspirators, he took the greater share of the profits, was involved in 

the scheme for its entire duration, and was responsible for the scheme’s entire loss. 

Furthermore, Defilippo did not provide substantial assistance to the government, as 

did some of his co-conspirators, and therefore he is not similar enough to them that 

the differences in their sentences are unwarranted. See id. 

Upon review of the record and consideration of the parties’ briefs, we 

affirm.

AFFIRMED.1

 1 Defilippo’s motion to file reply brief out of time is GRANTED.

Case: 12-16526 Date Filed: 01/07/2015 Page: 6 of 6