# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ No. 1 8- 16 72

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca
ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.
Zach ary Troy Fenn el l

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Weste rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i - J effe rs on Cit y

__ __ __ __ __ __ Su bm it te d: Feb ru ary 15 , 20 19 Fi le d: Ju ly 3, 20 19 [Un pu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re SM ITH, Chi ef J ud ge , BENTON and STRAS, Ci rcu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ PER CURI AM.

Zach ary Troy Fen ne ll pl ead ed gu il ty t o co ns pi racy to di st rib ut e

m et ha m ph et am in e, po ss es si on wit h in te nt to di st rib ut e m et ha m ph et am in e, an d be in g
a fel on in po ss es si on of a fir earm

. Fen ne ll rece iv e d met h a m ph et am in e fro m
co co ns pi rat or s th ro ug h th e m ai l at m ul ti pl e ad dr es se s an d th en red is tri bu te d th e dr ug s th ro ug ho ut th e Co lu m

bi a, Mi ss ou ri area . P ol ic e arre st ed F e n n e ll an d hi s as so ci at esfo ll owi ng th e co nt ro ll ed de li ve ry of a dr ug -fi ll ed pa ck ag e to a r e si de nc e sh ared by Fen ne ll an d h is gi rlf

rie nd

.

F e n n e ll ’s pr es en te nc e rep or t (PSR ) in di cat ed a to ta l of fen se le ve l of 3 9 , in cl ud in g a fo ur -le ve l le ad ers hi p ro le en ha nc em en t pu rs ua nt to U.S.S.G. § 3B 1.1 (a). Fen ne ll ob

jecte d to th e en ha nc em en t, bu t th e di st ric t co ur t ov er r u l e d h i s ob jecti on 1

an d cal cu la te d a Gui de li ne s ran ge of 32 4– 40 5 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t

. Upo n
co ns id erat io n, th e co ur t va rie d do wnwar d, im po si ng two 28 0- m on th se nt en ces fo r th e
co ns pi racy an d po ss es si on c h a r ge s an d on e 12 0- m on th se nt en ce fo r th e fel on -in

po ss e s s io n ch arg e, to be se rv ed co nc ur ren tl y

. On ap pe al , Fen ne ll ob jects to th e di st ric t co ur t’s in cl us io n of th e le ad ers hi p ro le en ha nc em en t an d ar g u e s th e co ur t im po se d a su bs ta nt iv el y

un reas on ab le sen te nc e. W e d is ag ree a nd affi rm

.

“ W e rev ie w a di st ric t co ur t’s fac t u a l fin di ng s su pp or ti ng a le ad ers hi p
en ha nc em en t fo r cl ear erro r an d it s le ga l co nc lu si on s de no vo

. The go ve rn m en t m us t pr ov e a le ad ers hi p en ha nc em en t is warra nt ed by a pr ep on de ran ce of th e ev id en ce.” Uni te d St at es v. Ade ti lo

ye , 71 6 F.3 d 10 30 , 10 37 (8 th Ci r. 20 13 ) (in te rn al ci ta ti on
om it te d)

.

In de te rm in in g whe th er th e Gov ern m en t ha s m et it s bu rd en , th e di st ric t
co ur t m ay acce pt an y un di sp ut ed po rti on of th e PSR as a fin di ng of fact

. Unl es s a d efen da nt ob

jects to a sp eci fic fact ua l al le ga ti on co nt ai ne d i n th e PSR, th e co ur t m ay acce pt th at fact as tru e fo r se nt en ci ng pu rp os es

.

Uni te d S ta te s v. Ra zo -Gu er ra , 53 4 F .3d 97 0, 9 75 (8t h C ir. 2 00 8) (cl ean ed up ).

Sect io n 3B1 .1(a ) cal ls fo r a fo ur -le ve l in crea se to a de fen da nt ’s off en se le ve l

“ [i]f th e de fen da nt was 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

The Hon or ab le Ste ph en R. Bo ug h, Un it ed Sta te s Di st ric t J ud ge for th e 1 W es te rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i.
-2

-or m or e pa rti ci pa nt s or was ot he rwise ex te nsi ve

. ” U

. S. S.G. § 3B 1.1 (a). In de te rm in in g

whe th er a de fen da nt qu al ifi es fo r th e en ha nc em en t, a di st ric t co ur t sh o u l d co ns id er th e d efen da nt ’s

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

fen se , th e recr ui tm en t of acco m pl ic es , th e cl ai m ed rig ht to a la rg er sh are of th e fr u i t s o f t he cri m e, th e de gr ee of 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 of 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 , cm t. n.4

. A di st ric t co ur t ne ed no t “ ex pr es sl y di sc us s ev ery fact or li st ed in th e ap pl ic at io n no te s to § 3B 1.1 .” Uni te d St at es v. All en , 64 1 F. App ’x 67 5, 67 7 (8 th Cir . 20 16 ) (p er cu ria m ).

“ W e in te rp ret th e te rm s ‘org an iz er’ an d ‘lead er’ br oa dl y

. Fo r a de fen da nt to be

an or ga ni zer or le ad er, he ne ed on ly di rect on e ot he r pa rti ci pa nt .” Ade ti lo ye , 71 6 F.3 d at 10 37 (in te rn al ci ta ti on om it te d)

. “ If a de fen da nt as su m ed or ga ni zi ng or le ad ers hi p fu nc ti on s, su ch as recr u i t i n g ot he rs to joi n th e cri m in al act iv it y , a fo ur -le ve l

en ha nc em en t is jus ti fie d.” Uni te d St at es v. Gar ci a , 51 2 F.3 d 10 04 , 10 05 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 ).

Fen ne ll co nc ed es th at he co ns pi red to di st rib ut e m et ha m ph et am in e an d th at th e
co ns pi racy in vo lv ed fiv e or m or e pa rt i c i pa nt s. Bu t, Fen ne ll ob jects to th e co ur t’s fin di ng th at he was th e co ns pi racy’ s “ le ad er , ” cl ai m in g th at “ [a]ll m em be rs of th e
co ns pi racy were free t o d o w h a t e v er th ey wan te d to do in th e m an ag em en t of th ei r
own in di vi du al co nt ro ll ed su bs ta nc e ret ai l bu si ne ss es .” App el la nt ’s Br. at 9. Fen ne ll fu rth er cl ai m s th at th e di st ric t co ur t de ve lo pe d an in su ffi ci en t reco rd to co nc lu de he

was a le ad er in th e co ns pi racy. Fenn el l i s i nc or rect on bo th po in ts . The re co rd do es
no t su pp or t Fen ne ll ’s cl ai m th at hi s as so ci at es act ed in de pe nd en tl y

. The reco rd do es ,

-3

-ho wev er, sh ow th e di st ric t co ur t ha d a su ffi ci en t fact ua l reco rd an d ad eq ua te ly

ad dr es se d t he lea de rs hi p i ss ue in it s s en te nc in g a na lysis

.

At se nt en ci ng , th e di st ric t co ur t st at ed th at it ha d r e v i e wed th e PSR, an d it he ard arg um en t fro m bo th s i d e s o n t h e le ad ers hi p is su e. It al so sp eci fic al ly as ke d Fen ne ll ab ou t cert ai n as pe ct s of hi s rel at io ns hi p wit h hi s co co ns pi rat or s. W e ha ve pr ev io us ly affi rm ed th e im po si ti on of th e le a d e r s h i p ro le en ha nc em en t whe re th e de fen da nt recr

ui te d as so ci at es , Gar ci a , 51 2 F.3 d at 10 06 ; di rect ed an ot he r in di vi du al to tra ns fer m on ey

an d “ rece iv e an d ho ld m ai l” on hi s b eh al f, Ade ti lo ye , 71 6 F .3d at 10 37 ; in st ru ct e d c oc on sp ira to rs on ho w to pr oc es s dr ug pr oc eed s, Uni te d St at es v. Lo pe z , 32 8 F. App ’x 35 2, 35 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ) (p er cu ria m ); a n d s u p pl ie d “ de al erqu an ti ti es ” of dr ug s to ot he rs , Ra z o
- G u er ra , 53 4 F.3 d at 97 6. The se fact s are al l pr es en t i n t hi s ca se

.

The PSR co nt ai ne d m

ul ti pl e un co nt es te d al le ga ti on s su pp or ti ng Fen ne ll as a
co ns pi racy le ad er. Fen ne ll so ld dr u g s to in di vi du al s who wou ld th en res el l th os e dr ug s to ot he rs

. A f

t e r F en ne ll was as sa ul te d an d ro bb ed , th ree m en cam e fro m Cal ifo rn ia to as si st Fen ne ll wit h hi s op erat io n, an d Fen ne ll pr ov id ed th em wit h fir earm s. Fen ne ll in st ru ct ed cert ai n co co ns pi rat or s to de po si t an d t r an sf er dr ug pr oc eed s on hi s be ha lf. And , Fen ne ll on ce in st ru ct ed a co co ns pi rat or to writ e “ ret ur n to se nd er” on a dr ug de li ve ry an d th en req ue st ed th at th e in di vi du al d i s p os e of

ev id en ce as so ci at ed wit h th at pa ck ag e. Add it io na ll y , fo ll owi ng h i s arre st , Fen ne ll in st ru ct ed an ot he r co co ns pi rat or to rem ov e ev id en ce fro m bo th he r res id en ce an d hi s
res id en ce. Fen ne ll di d no t ob ject to th es e PSR al le ga ti on s. Co ns eq ue nt ly, th e co ur t

co u l d “acc ep t [th em ] as tru e fo r se nt en ci ng pu rp os es .” Uni te d St at es v. Mos er , 1 68 F.3 d 1 13 0, 1 13 2 (8 th Cir . 19 99 ).

At se nt en ci ng , Fen ne ll al so co nc ed ed th at he ha d di rect ed th at dr ug s be m ai le d to di ffer en t wom en ’s ad dr es se s fo r hi m to ret rie ve

. Fen ne ll , th ou gh , cl ai m ed th e
wom en ha d “ vo lu nt eere d” to rece iv e hi s pa ck ag es

. Sen te nc in g Tr. at 5, Uni te d St at es

-4

-v. Fen ne ll , No. 2: 15 -cr- 04 06 7- SRB- 1 (W. D. Mo

. Apr

. 16 , 20 18 ), ECF. No. 52 5. On

th is reco rd , we co nc lu de th at th e di st ric t co ur t co ns id ered Fen ne ll ’s de ci si on m ak in g
au th or it y , th e na tu re of hi s pa rti ci p a ti on , as well as hi s recr ui tm en t an d or ga ni zi ng act iv it ie s. Th e d is tri ct co ur t di d no t err in fin di ng th at Fen ne ll ’s sen te nc e sh ou ld be

en ha nc ed be cau se of h is rol e as a le ad er o f th e co ns pi racy.

Fen ne ll ’s cl ai m th at th e di st ric t co ur t im po se d a su bs ta n t i v e l y un reas on ab le

se nt en ce al so lac ks m eri t. “ W e rev ie w th e su bs ta nt iv e rea so na bl en es s o f a se nt en ce
un de r th e de f

e r e n t ia l ab us e-o f-d is cret io n st an da rd

. . . .” Uni te d St at es v. La za rs ki , 56 0 F

. 3 d 7 31 , 73 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ). Fen ne ll arg ue s th at th e Gui de li ne s reco m m en d di sp ro po rti on at el y hi gh se nt en ces fo r m et ha m ph et am in e di st rib ut io n as co m pa red to th e di st rib ut io n of ot he r da ng ero us d r u g s. The di st ric t co ur t, in fact , ag reed wit h Fen ne ll , a nd th is ag reem en t un de rla y th e co ur t’s su bs ta nt ia l 44 -m on th do wnwar d

va ria nc e fro m

th e lo w-en d Gu id el in es ran ge of 32 4 m on th s. As we ha ve rep eat ed ly

no te d, whe re a co ur t va r i e s do wnwar d, “ it is ne arl y in co nc ei va bl e th at th e co ur t ab us ed it s di sc ret io n in no t va ry in g do wnwar d st il l fu rth er.” Id

. The di st ric t co ur t di d

no t ab us e it s d is cret io n.

The jud gm en t o f th e d is tri ct co ur t i s af fir m ed

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-5

-