United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit 

___________________________

No. 20-3099

___________________________ 

United States of America

 Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Victor Manuel Quijada

 Defendant - Appellant

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the District of Minnesota

____________ 

Submitted: September 20, 2021

Filed: December 29, 2021 

[Unpublished]

____________ 

Before KELLY, ERICKSON, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

Victor Quijada pled guilty to two counts of methamphetamine distribution. 

When calculating the United States Sentencing Guidelines Manual (“U.S.S.G.” or 

“Guidelines”) range, the district court1 applied a 2-level aggravating role sentencing 

1

The Honorable David S. Doty, United States District Judge for the District 

of Minnesota.
-2- 

enhancement because it concluded Quijada was an organizer, leader, manager, or 

supervisor in the offenses. See U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(c). The district court then 

sentenced Quijada to 200 months of imprisonment, which was within the 

recommended Guidelines range. Quijada appeals, arguing the evidence does not 

support the role enhancement. We affirm. 

I. Background

Quijada sold methamphetamine to an undercover officer on two occasions in 

2019. After his indictment and arrest, Quijada pled guilty to two counts of 

distributing 50 grams or more of actual methamphetamine. See 21 U.S.C. 

§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A).

For purposes of calculating the sentencing range under the Guidelines, the 

government urged the district court to increase Quijada’s offense level by four, 

arguing this was appropriate because Quijada “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). The government put on evidence that Quijada 

had directed two other participants during the drug deals observed by the undercover 

officer. The government also pointed to evidence that it claimed showed Quijada 

had directed at least two other people to pick up large amounts of illegal drugs in 

Arizona and bring them back to Quijada in Minnesota. Combined, the government 

argued this evidence showed Quijada organized or led extensive criminal activity 

involving at least five people.

The district court found the government did not show that Quijada directed 

others to retrieve drugs from Arizona. Thus, the district court found the government 

failed to show Quijada was the leader of a criminal enterprise involving five or more 

participants and it refused to apply the 4-level enhancement under U.S.S.G.

§ 3B1.1(a). The district court did, however, find that Quijada organized, led, 

managed, or supervised the undercover drug deals witnessed by the undercover 

officer and therefore applied the 2-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(c). 
-3- 

Applying this enhancement, the district court calculated a Guidelines range of 168 

to 210 months of imprisonment. After considering the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) 

sentencing factors, the district court imposed a 200-month sentence. 

II. Analysis

Quijada appeals, arguing the district court erred in applying the 2-level 

aggravating role enhancement. “We review the court’s application and construction 

of the Guidelines de novo and review its factual findings for clear error.” United

States v. Reed, 978 F.3d 538, 544 (8th Cir. 2020). 

The district court must enhance a defendant’s offense level by two if it 

determines “the defendant was an organizer, leader, manager, or supervisor in any 

criminal activity[.]” U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(c). We broadly interpret each of these terms. 

See United States v. McSmith, 968 F.3d 731, 736 (8th Cir. 2020). 

A district court may not apply the U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(c) enhancement based on 

a defendant’s mere distribution of drugs. See United States v. Gamboa, 701 F.3d 

265, 267 (8th Cir. 2012). For the enhancement to apply, a defendant must instead 

“direct or enlist the aid of others.” United States v. House, 923 F.3d 512, 518 (8th 

Cir. 2019) (quoting United States v. Bahena, 223 F.3d 797, 805 (8th Cir. 2000)). 

Managing or supervising even one other person in a single drug transaction is 

sufficient. See id. 

The record supports the district court’s finding that Quijada managed or 

supervised at least one other person while selling drugs. During the controlled buys, 

for example, Quijada directed an associate to make several phone calls arranging the 

logistics of the drug transaction, which led others to bring methamphetamine for 

Quijada to sell. And Quijada also had someone drive him to and from the second 

drug transaction. Considering this evidence, we see no basis to reverse the 2-level 

enhancement. See United States v. Hull, 646 F.3d 583, 587 (8th Cir. 2011) 

(upholding a 2-level enhancement where, along with other evidence, the defendant’s 
-4- 

wife “chauffeured him during the drug sale”); see also United States v. Rodriguez, 

741 F.3d 908, 912 (8th Cir. 2014) (upholding a 3-level enhancement where, along 

with other evidence, the defendant “directed his coconspirator to transport drugs and 

drug proceeds”); United States v. Cole, 657 F.3d 685, 687 (8th Cir. 2011) (upholding 

a 3-level enhancement where there was evidence the defendant directed the 

transportation of drugs and had an accomplice drive him to deliver drugs).

Even had the district court erred, reversal is not warranted here because the 

enhancement “did not affect the ultimate determination of a sentence.” United States 

v. Belfrey, 928 F.3d 746, 751 (8th Cir. 2019) (quoting United States v. Straw, 616 

F.3d 737, 742 (8th Cir. 2010)). Indeed, the district court analyzed the proper 

sentencing factors and explained it would impose the same sentence regardless of 

whether the enhancement applied. This explanation “shows that any procedural 

error was harmless.” United States v. Fisher, 965 F.3d 625, 633 (8th Cir. 2020). 

III. Conclusion

We affirm the judgment of the district court. 

______________________________