United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 11-3844

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Southern District of Iowa.

Manuel Moreno, *

* [PUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: April 20, 2012

Filed: June 4, 2012

___________

Before WOLLMAN, BYE, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Between 2002 and 2007, Manuel Moreno participated in a methamphetamine

conspiracy. He traveled to Des Moines, Iowa, to monitor meth deliveries and to

collect paymentsfor the conspiracy’s leader, Elfego Ignacio Cid. Moreno pled guilty

to conspiracy to distribute meth, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(b)(1)(A)(viii) and

846. The district court sentenced Moreno to 152 months’ imprisonment. He appeals

1

the finding that he managed or supervised the conspiracy. This court affirms.

The Honorable James E. Gritzner, Chief Judge, United States District Court

1

for the Southern District of Iowa.
The application of sentencing guidelines is reviewed de novo. United States

v. Barker, 556 F.3d 682, 689 (8th Cir. 2009). A defendant’s role in an offense is a

question of fact, subject to clearly erroneous review. United States v. Johnson, 47

F.3d 272, 277 (8th Cir. 1995). Reversal requires a “definite and firm conviction that

a mistake has been committed.” United States v. Martinez, 446 F.3d 878, 881 (8th

Cir. 2006), quoting Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, N.C., 470 U.S. 564, 573

(1985). If the district court chose a permissible view of the evidence, its holding is

not clearly erroneous. United States v. Garcia, 512 F.3d 1004, 1006 (8th Cir. 2008).

A three-level increase applies if the defendant managed orsupervised criminal

activity involving five or more participants, or which was otherwise extensive. 

U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(b). The government must prove the enhancement by a

preponderance of the evidence. United States v. Gaines, 639 F.3d 423, 427 (8th Cir.

2011). This court construes “manager” and “supervisor” broadly. United States v.

Erhart, 415 F.3d 965, 973 (8th Cir. 2005). 

The Sentencing Guidelines list seven factors to distinguish a manager or

supervisor from a leader or organizer, including “the degree of control and authority

exercised over others.” § 3B1.1 cmt. n.4; see Gaines, 639 F.3d at 428-29 (evaluating

those factors in a § 3B1.1(b) enhancement). The district court found that Moreno

acted as Cid’s “eyes and ears” in Des Moines. While Moreno did not “specifically

direct[ ] behavior,” he ensured the operation went according to plan and that the

proceeds got back to California. Citing United States v. Plancarte-Vazquez, 450 F.3d

848, 853 (8th Cir. 2006), Moreno argues that enhancement requiressome control over

at least one other participant. See also United States v. Payton, 636 F.3d 1027, 1048

(8th Cir. 2011). To the contrary, a defendant’s control over another participant is

sufficient but not necessary for a § 3B1.1(b) enhancement. Gaines, 639 F.3d at 428

n.4. 

-2-
The district court did not clearly err in enhancing Moreno’s sentence. One

permissible view of the evidence is that he supervised the conspiracy’s Des Moines

deliveries and payments. The exercise of “management responsibility over the

property, assets, or activities of a criminal organization” may warrant enhancement. 

§ 3B1.1 cmt. n.2.

The judgment of the district court is affirmed. 

_________________________________

-3-