FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T OCTOB ER 19, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 15 43 0 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 1 :0 8- cr-0 04 88 -J EC-ECS- 1

UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us ARIEL BLANCO ARROYO-GOMEZ, a.k .a. Bla nc o, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll 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 urt forth e North ernDis tri ctof Ge or gi a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Oct ob er 1 9, 2 01 1) Befo re EDMONDSON, CARNES an d KRAVITC H, Circ ui t J ud ge s. PER CURI AM:Arie l Bl an co Arro y o- Gom ez ap pe al s h is 18 0- m on th sen te nc e fo r co ns pi racy

to po ss es s wi th in te ntto di st rib ut e atlea st5 k il og ram s o f co cai ne , 50 0 g ram s o f m etha m ph et am in e, an d l es s t han 5 0 k il og ram s o f m ari juan a, in vi ol at io n o f 21 U.S.C. § 8 46 an d § 84 1( b) (1 )(A)(i i), (v ii ) an d (b )(1 )(D). Arro y o- Gom ez co nt en ds th atth e di stric t co urt erredby app lying a two -le ve l en ha nc em en t fo r hi s ro le in th e o ffen se as “ anorg an iz er, l ead er, m an ag er, o r supe rv is or .” U.S.S.G. § 3B 1.1 (c). He arg ue s t ha t the go ve rn m en t p res en te d n o e vi de nc e athi s s en te nc e he ari ng to supp ort a f

in di ng th athe act edina supe rv is ory or m an ag eri al cap aci ty. A di st ric t co urt’s d et erm in at io n tha t a d efen dantis subjec t t o a§ 3 B1 .1 ro le en ha nc em en t i s a f

in di ng of f

actth atwe rev ie w on ly for cl ear e rro r. Uni te d S ta te s v. Ra m ire z, 42 6 F .3d13 44 , 13 55 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ). The s en te nc in g g ui de li ne s pr ov id e fo r a two- le ve l en ha nc em en t “ [i]f th e d efen da ntwas a n o rg an iz er, l ead er, m an ag er, o r supe rv is or ” in th e cri m in al act iv it y . U.S.S.G. § 3B 1.1 (c). In as se ss in g t he de fen da nt ’s rol e in th e o ffen se , th e co urt s ho ul d c on si de r fac to rs su ch as the ex erci se of d eci si on -m ak in g aut ho rit y , th e rec ru it m en t o f acc om pl ic es , th e cl ai m edrig htto a la rg er s ha re o f th e fru it s o f th e cri m e, th e d eg ree o f pa rti ci pa ti on in pl an ni ng an d o rg an iz in g, an d t he de gr ee o f co nt ro l o r au th or it y ex erci se d o ve r ot he rs . Id. § 3B 1.1 cmt. n .4. Inth e p res en t ca se Sp eci al Agen t Al ex Asce nc io tes ti fie d a t the sen te nc e 2he ari ng th atreco rd edph on e cal ls est ab li sh edth atArro y o- Gom ez i ns tru ct edco co ns pi rat orAaro n C ru z to faci li ta te dru g d eal s an d h el p g etcu st om ers . Also , Cru z cal le d Arr oyo-Go m ez t o g etm at eri al s t o “ cu t the dru gs .” Inon e p art ic ul ar ca ll , Cru z as ke d Arr oyo-Go m ez wh ethe r he ha d asupp ly of drug s av ai labl e fo r hi m . Arro y o- Gom ez re sp on de d t ha t h e n eed edto cut the dru gs , andhe to ldCru z to wait athi s cu rren t l oc at io n. Ag en t As cen ci o t es ti fie d abo utan ot he r co nv ers at io n i n whi chArro y o- Gom ez i ns tru ct edCru z to sh ow a b uyer a qu art er k il og ram of co cai ne , em

ph as iz in g t ha t the gro up “ne ed edto ge t s om ethi ng ou t o f it .” Cru z’s de pe nd en ce o n Arr oyo-Go m ez fo r a s up pl y of d ru gs , m at eri al s t o c utth em , and in st ru ct io ns ab ou t s el li ng th em est ab li sh es Arro y o- Gom ez’s co nt ro l o r le ad ers hi p ov er h im , and“ [t]he ass ert io n o f co nt ro l o r in flu en ce o ve r on ly one in di vi du al is en ou ghto supp ort a § 3B 1.1 (c) e nh an cem en t.” Un it edSta te s v . Perry, 34 0 F .3d 12 16 , 12 17 (11 th Cir . 20 03 ) (al te rat io n o m it te d) . The di stric t co urt al so he ardtes ti m on y th atArro y o- Gom ez m ad e o th er arra ng em en ts fordru g d eal s an d n eg ot ia te d p ric es , in cl ud in g s et ti ng th e te rm s o f a fiv e-p ou ndm etha m

ph et am in e d eal . Thatev id en ce s up po rts th e d is tri ctco urt’s fin di ng th atth e § 3B 1.1 (c) e nh an cem en t was ap pl ic ab le . See Un it edSta te s v . St an le y , 24 F.3d13 14 , 13 23 (11 th Cir . 19 94 ) (h ol di ng th atev id en ce tha t the de fen da ntne go ti at edth e p ric e o f th e dru gs an d m ad e arr an ge m en ts for th e dru g 3tra ns act io n was en ou gh to est ab li sh th athe ha d a ct edina m an ag eri al cap aci ty);

se e al so Uni te d S ta te s v . Mat th ews , 16 8 F .3d12 34 , 12 49 (11 th Cir . 19 99 ) (ex pl ai ni ng th at“ [i]n adru g d is tri bu ti oncas e . . . the m an ag em en t en hanc em en t is ap pr op ria te fora de fen da ntwho arran ge s dru g tran sa ct io ns , neg ot ia te s s al es with o th ers , andhi res ot he rs to workforth e co ns pi racy”). The d is tri ctco urt d id no t cl earl y

err b y fin di ng th atth e two -le ve l en ha nc em en t ap pl ie d t o Arr oyoGom ez. AFFIRMED.

4