# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 5- 20 78

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

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.

Dan ie l No k M us a

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 Dis tri ct of M in ne so ta - St. Pa ul

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: May 16, 2 01 6
Fil ed : J ul y

28 , 20 16

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re RI LEY, Chi ef J ud ge , COLLOTO N and KELLY , Cir cu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __

KELLY, Cir cu it Ju dg e.

Dan ie l Nok M u s a pl ead ed gu il ty, wit ho ut a writ te n pl ea ag reem en t, to 14

co un ts of fai li ng to pa y to th e In te rn al Rev en ue Serv ic e (I.R.S.) th e fu ll am ou nt of hi s

em pl oyees’ ta x wit hh ol di ng s, in vi ol at io n of 26 U.S.C. § 72 02

. The di st ric t co ur t

se nt en ced M u s a t o 5 1 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t on al l 14 co un ts

, to be se rv edco nc ur ren tl y

. Mu sa ap pe al s, c h a l l e n gi ng th e co ur t’s ap pl ic at io n of a fo ur -le ve l

le ad ers hi p en ha nc em en t un de r USSG § 3B 1.1 ( a )

. Bec au se we fin d th at th e di st ric t

c o u rt di d no t m ak e th e req ui red fin di ng s fo r th is en ha nc em en t, we rem an d t o t h e

di st ric t co ur t.

I.

Mu sa was th e o wne r an d p res id en t o f a h om e h eal th care ser vi ce. Beg in ni ng

in th e fir st qu art er o f 20 06 an d c on ti nu in g t hr ou gh Sep te m be r 20 09 , Mu sa fai le d t o

fo rward al l of th e fed eral in co m e ta xe s an d FICA ta xe s wit hh el d fro m hi s em pl oyees’

pa y ch eck s to th e I.R.S. I n s t e ad

, he sp en t th e m on ey

. As th e I.R.S. at te m pt ed to

co ll ect th e un pa id ta xe s, Mu sa ch an ge d th e na m e of hi s ho m e he al th care se rv ic e an d
pl aced va rio us pr op ert ie s an d bu si ne ss es in th e na m es of hi s wife an d th ree ch il dr en

.

In ca l c u la ti ng Mu sa ’s ad vi so ry se nt en ci ng gu id el in es , th e pr ob at io n of fic e

reco mm e n d e d Mu sa be gi ve n a fo ur -le ve l en ha nc em en t fo r hi s ro le in th e of fen se

. See USS G § 3 B1 .1. The pro ba ti on off ic er re co m

m en de d t he ad

jus tm en t b ecau se :

Mu sa co nt ro ll ed an d ex erci se d co m pl et e de ci si on m ak in g au th or it y ov er th e si x bu si ne ss es he crea te d ov er an ex te nd ed (1 1 y ear) pe rio d of ti m e. His co nd uc t in vo lv ed a de gr ee of au th or it y a s he m ov ed fro m on e bu si ne ss to an ot he r in or de r to ev ad e ta xe s. Fu rth er, in ve st ig at iv e

m at eri al s in di cat e th at Mu sa crea te d fal se do cu m en ts to m ak e it ap pe ar th at at l eas t o ne bu si ne ss , LLPCA[,] ha d b een run by his da ug ht er.

Mu sa ob jecte d th at th is was a on e-p ers on of fen se an d th at be in g in co nt ro l of va rio us

en ti ti es di d no t el ev at e hi s ro le in to th at of a le ad er or or ga ni zer. The pr ob at io n of fic e

res po nd ed th at th e fo ur -le ve l ro le en ha nc em en t was warra n t e d b ecau se th e of fen se

in vo lv ed cri m in al act iv it y th at was “ ot he rwis e ex te ns iv e,” “Mu s a c on tro ll ed an d

ex erci se d co m

pl et e de ci si on m ak in g au th or it y ov er th e si x bu si ne ss es he crea te d” an d

-2

-hi s “ co nd uc t in vo lv ed a de gr ee of au th or it y as he m ov ed fro m on e bu si ne ss to an ot he r

in ord er t o e va de tax es .”

A t t h e se nt en ci ng he ari ng , th e di st ric t co ur t ov erru le d Mu sa ’s ob jecti o n ,
st at in g:

I fin d th at reg ard le ss o f w h e t h e r th ere were ot he rs in vo lv ed in th is
cri m in al act iv it y , th ere is th e ‘or was ot he rwis e ex te ns iv e’ pr ov is io n, an d

I th in k th is was cl earl y ex te ns iv e, th is si tu at io n. Mr. Mu sa ha d au th or it y

ov er si x bu s i n e s s e s [o ve r] an 11 -y ear ex te nd ed pe rio d of ti m e. He

cert ai nl y ha d au th or it y be cau se he m ov ed fro m on e bu si ne ss to an ot he r in ord er t o e va de tax es , creat ed fal se do cu m en ts

.

The di st ric t co ur t t he n i m po se d t he fou r-l ev el en ha nc em en t.

II

.

On ap pe al

, Mu sa co nt en ds th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in im po si ng a fo ur -le ve l

le ad ers hi p- ro le en ha nc em en t be cau se th e co ur t fai le d to id en ti fy an y ot he r pa rti ci pa nt

who se act iv it ie s Mu sa di rect ed

. W e rev ie w a di st ric t co ur t’s fact u a l f i nd in gs

reg ard in g whe th er a le ad ers hi p en ha nc em en t is warra nt ed fo r cl ear erro r an d it s le ga l

co nc lu si on s de no vo

. Uni te d St at es v

. A d e t i lo y e, 71 6 F.3 d 10 30

, 10 37 (8 th Ci r.

20 13 ). It is th e g ov ern m en t’s b ur de n to pr ov e a le ad ers hi p enh an cem en t app li es by

a p rep on de ran ce o f th e ev id en ce. Id

.

Sen te nc in g Gui de li ne § 3B 1.1 (a) al lo ws a fo ur -le ve l in crea se in a de fen da nt ’s

of fen 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 or m or e pa rti ci pa nt s or was ot he rwis e ex t e n s i v e.” In or de r fo r th e

le ad ers hi p en ha nc em en t to ap pl y , th e go ve rn m en t m us t pr ov e two el em en ts

. Fi rs t, th e

go ve rn m en t m

us t pr ov e th e de fen da nt or ga ni zed or le d at le as t on e ot he r pa rti ci pa nt

in th e cri m in al act iv it y

. USSG § 3B 1.1 cm t. n.2 ; se e al so Uni te d St at es v. Ade jum o,

-3

-77 2 F .3d 51 3, 5 32 (8t h C ir.2 01 4) (no ti ng th at “ [w]e hav e al way s re qu ire d e vi de nc e

th at th e de fen da nt di rect ed or pr oc ur ed th e ai d of un de rli ng s” (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es

v. Irl m ei er, 75 0 F.3 d 75 9, 76 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 14 )). Seco nd

, th e go ve rn m en t m us t pr ov e

th e cri m in al act iv it y in vo lv ed at le as t fiv e pa rti ci pa nt s or was “ ot he rwis e ex te ns iv e.”

USSG § 3B 1.1 (a); se e al so Uni te d St at es v. Vas qu ez-R ub io

, 29 6 F.3 d 72 6, 72 9 (8 th

Ci r. 20 02 ). “ A ‘part ic ip an t’ is a pe rs on who is cri m in al ly res po ns ib le fo r th e

co m m is si on of th e of

fen se , bu t ne ed no t ha ve be en co nv ic te d.” USSG § 3B 1.1 cm t.

n.1 ; se e al s o V a sq ue z-Ru bi o, 29 6 F.3 d at 72 9. “ A pe rs on who is no t cri m in al ly

res po ns ib le fo r th e co m

m is si on of th e of

fen se (e.g

., an un de rco ve r la w en fo rcem en t

of fic er) i s n ot a pa rti ci pa nt .” USSG § 3 B1 .1 cm t. n .1.

The go ve rn m en t as se rts th e di st ric t co ur t im pl ic it ly fo un d th at Mu sa ’s fam il y

m em be rs were “ pa rti ci pa nt s” by ad op ti ng th e in fo rma t i o n c on ta in ed in th e

Pres en te nc e Rep or t (PSR ). Alt ho ug h we ge ne ral ly co nst ru e the te rm s “ or ga ni zer” an d

“ le ad er” br oa dl y , se e Uni te d St at es v. Bo ld en , 59 6 F.3 d 97 6, 98 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ), in

or de r fo r a de fen da nt to be an or ga ni zer or le ad er, th ere m us t be some ev id en ce tha t

he di rect ed at le as t on e ot h e r p a r t ic ip an t. Uni te d St at es v. Ro dr ig ue z-Ra m os , 66 3

F.3 d 35 6, 36 5 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ). Here, t h e c o ur t sp eci fic al ly st at ed th at th e

e n h a n cem en t ap pl ie d “ reg ard le ss of whe th er th ere were ot he rs in vo lv ed in th i s

cri m in al act iv it y .” The re was no di sc us si on reg ard in g th e ne ces sa ry el em en ts of th e

en ha nc em en t du rin g th e se nt en ci ng he ari ng

. The on ly fact s ci te d by th e di st ric t co ur t

co nc ern ed Mu sa ’s co nt ro l ov er di ffer en t bu si ne ss en ti ti es , no t ot he r pe op le

. Fi na ll y , bo th th e PSR an d th e go ve rn m en t’s p o s i t io n on se nt en ci ng su gg es te d th e

en ha nc em en t co ul d ap pl y ba se d on Mu sa ’s cri m in al act iv it y si m pl y be in g “ ot he rwis e

ex te ns iv e,” wit ho ut ad dr es si ng whet he r Mu sa di rect ed or o rg an iz ed so m eo ne els e.

On th is reco rd

, we can no t sa y th at th e di st ric t co ur t m ad e th e req ui red fin di ng

th at Mu sa or ga ni zed or le d at le as t o n e o t he r pa rti ci pa nt in th e cri m in al sc he m e to jus ti fy th e fo ur -le ve l en ha nc em en t. Acco rd in gl y , we rem an d th e cas e to pr ov id e th e

di st ric t co ur t th e op po rtu ni ty to cl ari fy whe th er Mu s a o r g a n iz ed or le d at le as t on e

-4

-ot he r pa rti ci pa nt

, an d to id en ti fy wha t ev id en ce in th is reco rd su pp or ts th at fin di ng

. 1

If th e reco rd fai ls to su pp or t su ch a fin di ng , th e di st ric t co ur t sh ou ld pr oc eed

acco rd in gl y

.

COLLOTON, Ci rcu it Ju dg e, co nc ur rin g.

The di st ric t co ur t fo un d th at ap pe ll an t Dan ie l Mu sa was an or ga ni zer or le ad er

of cri m in al act iv it y th at was “ ot he rwis e ex te ns iv e.” Se e USSG § 3B 1.1 (a). I co nc ur

in th e op in io n of th e co ur t rem an di ng fo r cl ari fic at io n bec au se it ho ld s on ly th at th e

di st ric t co ur t di d no t m ak e an ad eq ua te fin di ng ab ou t whe th er Mu sa or ga ni zed or le d

an ot he r pa rti ci pa nt in th e cri m in al act iv it y

. Se e id

. , co m m en t. (n .2). The go ve rn m en t

arg ue s on ap pe al th at th e ad jus tm en t was ap pr op ria te be cau se th e di st ric t co ur t

a d o p t e d fact s in th e pr es en te nc e rep or t es ta bl is hi ng th at Mu sa ’s wife an d ch il dr en

were pa rti ci pa nt s in cri m in al act iv it y or ga ni zed or le d by Mu sa

. The co ur t’s op in io n

do es no t ad dr es s th e su ffi ci en cy of th is ev id en ce; it ho ld s on ly th at th e di st ric t co ur t

di d no t m ak e th e req ui red fin di ng th at Mu sa or ga ni zed or le d an ot he r pa rti ci pa nt

. The

go ve rn m en t al so arg ue s th at th e jud gm en t co ul d be affi rm ed on th e al te rn at iv e gr ou nd

th at Mu sa ’s cri m in al act iv it y in volve d at le as t fi ve cr im ina lly resp on si bl e pa rti ci pa nt s.

The di st ric t co ur t m ad e no fin di ng on th is is su e, an d th e op in io n do es no t ad dr es s it

. Ant e , at 5 n.1

. The op in io n als o do es no t add res s whet he r th e reco rd wou ld su pp or t

an up ward de pa rtu re or va ria nc e fro m th e ad vi so ry gu id el in e ran ge if Mu sa di d no t

or ga ni ze or le ad an ot he r pa rti ci pa nt

. Se e 18 U.S.C. § 35 53 (a)( 1) ; USSG § 3B 1.1

,

co m m en t. (n .2). On th es e u nd ers ta nd in gs , I co nc ur

.

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

Bec au se we ar e re m an din g fo r cl ar if ic at io n of whe th er th e go ve rn m en t sh owe d 1

M u sa or ga ni zed or le d at le as t on e ot he r pa rti ci pa nt —a ne ces sa ry el em en t fo r a le ad ers hi p en ha nc em en t— we do no t ad dr es s whe th er th e go ve rn m en t show ed th at th e cri m in al act iv it y “ in vo lv ed fiv e or m or e pa rti ci p a nt s or was ot he rwis e ex te ns iv e.” USSG § 3B 1.1 (a).

-5

-