FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

APR 25 2000

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

[PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

Nos. 97-2873 

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 96-00096-CR-ORL-18

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ROBERT WILLIAM YEAGER, ROY ROBERT YEAGER, JEFFREY

CHRISTOPHER YEAGER, DUANE C. YEAGER, and BEVERLY DENISE

YEAGER,

Defendants-Appellants.

_______________

No. 97-2894

_______________

D.C. Docket No. 96-00096-CR-ORL-18

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ROY ROBERT YEAGER, a.k.a. Buddy,

Defendant-Appellant.
1

 Honorable J. Owen Forrester, U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Georgia,

sitting by designation.

2

________________________

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida 

_________________________

(April 25, 2000)

Before ANDERSON, Chief Judge, BLACK, Circuit Judge, and FORRESTER1

,

District Judge.

PER CURIAM

In this factually complex, multi-defendant direct criminal appeal, we address

one issue in this published opinion, and resolve all other claims on appeal in an

unpublished appendix. The one matter that warrants publication relates to Robert

Williams Yeager’s challenge to the analysis used by the district court in applying the

role-in-the-offense enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1. 

This case is brought against various members of what was denominated in the

indictment as the Yeager organization. It was alleged that this organization, operating

from locations in rural mid-Florida, engaged in the large-scale theft of commercial

trucks and tractor-trailers, interstate transportation of these vehicles and their parts,

arson, homicide, the manufacture and distribution of methamphetamine, and insurance
3

fraud. It was alleged that Robert William Yeager (hereinafter “Robert Yeager”)

directed the activities of the organization. 

Robert Yeager’s convictions were divided into seven groups for sentencing, an

arrangement which he does not oppose. (R29-35). Group One represented the drug

offenses, including Robert Yeager’s conviction for participation in a

methamphetamine conspiracy in violation 21 U.S.C. § 846. This group had the

highest adjusted offense level and was therefore the focus of the court at sentencing.

The trial court set Robert Yeager’s base offense level for Group One at 32, calculated

based upon the amount of methamphetamine attributed to him. (R29-60). The court

enhanced his offense level by a two-level increase for possession of a dangerous

weapon, a four-level increase for an aggravating role in the offense, and a two-level

increase for obstruction of justice. (R29-35-46; 59-60). The court as a result found

Robert Yeager’s adjusted offense level for Group One to be 40. (R29-59-60).

Robert Yeager contends on appeal that the district court erred in adjusting his

offense level under Group One upward by four levels under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(a) for

his role in the offense. He asserts that there was no evidence presented at trial or

sentencing upon which it could be determined that he was an organizer or leader of

the methamphetamine conspiracy. He argues that the district court improperly relied
4

upon his role in the overall RICO conspiracy to enhance his offense level for the drug

convictions. 

The government relies upon the Seventh Circuit decision in United States v.

Damico, 99 F.3d 1431 (7th Cir. 1996), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 1151 (1996), in support

of its contention that Robert Yeager’s adjusted offense level for Group One was

properly calculated. The court in Damico considered the issue raised by Robert

Yeager in the instant appeal: Whether U.S.S.G. § 2E1.1 requires that a defendant’s

role in the offense be separately judged with respect to each offense underlying his

RICO conviction, as opposed to being judged with respect to the overall RICO

conspiracy. Id. at 1435-36. The Seventh Circuit determined that “the predicate-bypredicate approach of [U.S.S.G. § 2E1.1] applies . . . only for the purpose of

establishing a RICO defendant’s base offense level, and not for the purpose of

applying the Chapter Three adjustments.” Id. at 1438. We agree with the reasoning

of the Seventh Circuit.

The first step in applying the Sentencing Guidelines is to determine the

applicable offense guideline and ascertain the base offense level, applying any

appropriate specific offense characteristics, cross references, and special instructions

contained in that particular guideline. U.S.S.G. § 1B1.1(a)-(b). 
5

Robert Yeager was convicted under thirty-three separate counts, Count One

being a conviction for RICO. The offense guideline applicable to RICO is set forth

in U.S.S.G. § 2E1.1, and in this case it is ascertained from the offense level applicable

to the underlying racketeering activity. The district court determined that, based upon

the amount of drugs attributable to Robert Yeager, his base offense level for the

methamphetamine conspiracy was 32.

The district court then increased the offense level by two levels, pursuant to the

specific offense characteristic applicable to possession of a dangerous weapon. See

U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1). Based upon the findings of the district court, the base offense

level for the underlying drug conspiracy was set at 34. As this is higher than the

alternative minimum level provided for in U.S.S.G. § 2E1.1(a)(1), this is the base

offense level to be used. The district court determined 34 to be the offense level

without applying the Chapter 3 adjustment for role in the drug offense at this stage of

the calculation. Therefore, the sentencing court never determined that Robert Yeager

was a leader or organizer of the drug conspiracy. 

Instead, the district court applied the adjustments set forth in Parts A, B, and C

of Chapter Three to Count One. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.1(c). The court determined that

Robert Yeager was a leader or organizer of the overall RICO conspiracy and applied

a four-level increase under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(a). 
2

The other issues on appeal are addressed in a separate, unpublished appendix, which sets

out the resolution of this appeal with respect to the several appellants.

6

Robert Yeager argues only on appeal that there was insufficient evidence of his

leadership role in the drug conspiracy; he does not deny his leadership role in the

overall RICO conspiracy. Because we agree with the Seventh Circuit in Damico that

it is appropriate to judge a RICO defendant’s role in the offense with respect to the

overall RICO conspiracy for the purpose of applying an enhancement under U.S.S.G.

§ 3B1.1(a), we reject this challenge by Robert Yeager.

SO ORDERED.2