### In the



# United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit

No. 13-2799
U NI T E D S TAT E SOF A M E RI C A , Plaintiff-Appellee ,

v.

J O H N M A

Y , Defen dant-Appellant.
Appe al f ro m the Uni ted S tates Distri ct Co urt fo r the Nor thern Distri ct o f Il l i noi s, Eastern Di v i sio n. No. 12 CR 00 25 7 — Edmond E. Cha ng, Judg e.
A RGU E D M ARC H 5, 2014

— D E C I D E D A P R I L 8, 2014

Befo r e E A S T E R

B R O O K , M AN I O N

, and H AMI L T O N

, Circ uit Judges. M AN I O N , Cir cui t Judge

. John May appeals hi s t en-y ear se nt ence for conspi racy to di strib ute cocaine base, and chal

lenges in particu lar the di stric t co urt’s (1) asses sment of an adjustment under U.S.S

. G. § 3B1.1 for hi s aggr av atin g ro le in the offense and (2) refusal to aw a rd safety-v alv e relief. But May’ s large ro le in coor dinati ng hi s co-cons pi rat or ’s acti viti es2 No. 13-2799
supp or te d the c ourt ’s appli cati on of the § 3B1.1 adjustment and di squali fi ed hi m from the safety v alv e. W e affi rm. The following facts are undi sputed. May a nd his cousin, V aldemere Collier

, sold crack cocaine to an FBI informant on three occasi ons. Before the fi rst sale, May instructed Collier to deli v er a sampl e of the cocaine to the informant and to tell the informant the pric e for l a r g e r amounts. Three cocaine sales then to ok place b etw een December 2008 an d March 2009. Fo r each sale, May and the informant di scu ssed the quanti ty of drugs to be sold and the price, and May told the informant to pi ck up the co caine at Collier’s house. May instructed Collier to accept the informant’s payment a nd ensure that the infor

mant too k possess i on of the cocaine. According to the government at sentencing, duri ng these tr ansac tions May w ai ted in another ro om or outsi de unti l each sa l e w as complete. After each sale Collier turned the money ov er to May , who then gav e Collier a share of the profits but kept a lar g e r p or tion for hi mself

. After hi s arr e st , M ay pleaded gui lty to conspi racy to possess wi th intent to di st r ibu t e crack cocaine, see 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)( 1), 846. The plea agr e ement noted that the parties di sagreed on whether May had acted as a supervis or w arr anting a tw o-lev el adjustment under U.S.S .G. § 3B1.1. W i th reg ard to May’ s eli gib i li ty for safety-v alv e relief under § 3553(f ), the agr eement sti pulated that May sa t isfi ed four of the fi v e requirements , but noted the parties’ di sagreement ov er the remain ing element: whet he r May w as an “or gani zer , leader , manager , or supervis or of ot hers in the offense.”No. 13-2799 3
I n M ay’s presentence inv esti gation repo rt, the probat i on offi cer recommended again st i mposing the § 3B1.1 adjustment becau se May w as only an “av erag e partici pant” in the offense and had inv olv ed Collier to “insu late hi mself from the tr ansac
tions

... in the most mini mal w ay ,” as “more of an afterthought than a calculated element of the offense sch eme.” And becau se May di d not w arr ant the § 3B1.1 adj us t me nt , the probat i on offi cer reasoned, he quali fi ed for the safety-v alv e reducti on, see 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f )(4) , and should not be subject to the ten-y ear statuto ry mini mum, see 21 U.S.C. § 841(b) (1)( A). The presentence repo rt recommended that the appli cable sentencing guid eline range w as 70 to 87 months i n pri son. At se nt e ncing, the government arg ued for the § 3B1.1(c) adjustment on gr ounds that May w as an or gani zer , leader , manager , or supervis or

. May w as more culpab le than Collier , the government co ntended, becau se he had acces s to the cocaine supp ly

, negot i ated the pric e and quanti ty , told Collier what to do, and kept most of the sales’ profits. May countered that he w as co l l abo rat ing wi th Collier , not supervis ing hi m, and di d not deserv e the adjustment. B ecaus e he di d not act as a supervis or

, May asserted, he sati sfi ed the remain ing element for safety-v alv e relief and the di stric t court could sentence hi m wi thout r egar d to t he statutor y mini mum

. The di stric t courtaccepted the government’s posi tion that May held a supervis or y ro le in the offense and applie d t he § 3B1.1 adjustment. Accordi ng to the cour t, May told Collier what to do, deci ded whether and how much Collier w as pai d, and tr i ed to di stance hi mself from the sales by using Collier to handle the tr ansac tions

. W i thout further explanation, the court conclu ded that May di d not quali fy fo r the safety-v alv e4 No. 13-2799
prov i si on and there fore w as subject to the ten-y ear statuto ry mini mum

. On appeal May fi rst contends that the di strict co ur t err ed by i mposing the § 3B1.1 adjustment for playi ng an aggr av atin g ro le in the offense. He maintai ns that he and Collier w ere equal partner s and collaborate d in the offense, and nei ther held a hi gher posi tion than the other

. Accordi ng to May the facts are “equally consi stent” wi th the view that he w as not a supervisor

. May’ s bald asserti on about “equally consi stent” fa cts i s a non-starter

, given our deferential standard of rev i ew

. See United States v
. Doe, 613 F .3d 681, 686 (7th Ci r
. 2010). If tw o possi ble conclu si ons can be drawn from the evidenc e, then the choi ce betw een them cannot be clearly err oneous. United States
v
. Hatten-Lubick

, 525 F .3d 575, 580 (7th Ci r
. 2008). And the facts here supp or t the di st r ict court’s conclu si on that May super
v i sed Collier: May set the pric e and quanti ty , obtained t he cocaine from hi s supp li er , instructed Col l ie r t o deli v er a sa mple and ov ersee the sales, and May di strib uted the proceeds from the sales, alw ays keeping more for hi mself

. See Un ited States v
. V

aughn , 722 F .3d 918, 935–36 (7th Ci r
. 2013) (defendan t gav e drugs to co-cons pi rat or , told co-cons pi rat or where to meet buy er

, and co-cons pi rat or turned profits ov er to defendant); United States v
. Figu eroa, 682 F .3d 694, 697 (7th Ci r
. 2012) (de fe ndant pai d and di rected co-cons pi rat or to obtain and deli v er dr ugs). May next asserts that notwi thstanding the § 3B1.1 a djustme nt, the court err ed in deter mining that hi s supervis i on o f just one person di squali fi ed hi m from safety-v alv e relief underNo. 13-2799 5
18 U.S.C. § 3553(f )(4)

. He focus es on the refer ence in the safetyv a l ve prov i si on to the plural “other s”: a defendant i s not eli gib l e for the safety v alv e i f he w as “an or gani zer , leader , manager , or supervis or of others

. ” 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f )(4) (emphas i s added) ; U.S.S .G. § 5C1.2(a)(4)

. May interpr ets thi s prov i si on to mean that the safety v alv e remain s av ai lable to a defendant who supervis ed only one person, and he supervis ed only Co lli er

. But under the rules of constructi on for the Unit e d St ates Code, “w or ds i mport ing the plural inclu de the singular” unles s the co ntext indi cates other wi se. 1 U.S.C. § 1; see also Rowland v
. Calif. Me n ’ s Colony , Unit II Men’s Advisory Counc il , 506 U.S. 194, 200–01 (1993) (court s ma y depart from § 1's presumpti v e defini tions to avoi d “forci ng a square peg into a ro und hole”); United States v
. Holcomb , 657 F .3d 44 5 , 448 (7th Ci r
. 2011). Fu rt her supp or t for denyi ng the safety v alv e to a supervis or of a single person appears in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f )(4) , whi ch di squali fi es a defendant from the safety v alv e i f he w as a “supervisor of other s in the offense, as determine d unde r the sentenc ing guidel ines .” 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f )(4) (emphas i s added). The plain language of § 3553(f )(4) condi tions safety-v alv e relief
on whether the defendant i s characterized as a supervis or anywhere in the gui delines, see id .; U.S.S .G. § 5C1.2(a)(4) ; Doe, 613 F .3d at 690, and the c ommentary to § 3B1.1 authorizes the tw o-lev el adjustment as long the defendant supervis ed “ one or more ” partici pants. U.S.S .G. § 3B1. 1 cmt. n.2. (emphas i s added); see also United Stat es v

. Gonza lez-Mendoz a , 584 F .3d 726, 728–29 (7th Ci r
. 2009) (§ 3B1.1 adjustment for defendant’s supervis i on of one co-cons p ir ator foreclosed arg ument for safety-v alv e6 No. 13-2799
relief ). Be ca us e May proper ly receiv ed the tw o-lev el adjustment under § 3B1.1, he i s not eli gib le for safety-v alv e relief. AFF IRM ED.