United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 98-3355

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of Arkansas.

Francisco Ocampo, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

 Submitted: February 5, 1999

 Filed: February 9, 1999

___________

Before FAGG, HANSEN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Francisco Ocampo pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute methamphetamine,

in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. Mr. Ocampo objected to the presentence report&s

recommendation of a two-level enhancement under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines

Manual § 3B1.1(c) (1998) for being a leader of a criminal offense, and to the

calculation of his criminal history score. Mr. Ocampo additionally sought a

downward departure, arguing that his criminal history score overrepresented the
1The Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren, Chief Judge, United States District Court

for the Western District of Arkansas.

-2-

seriousness of his past offenses. After a hearing, the district court1 overruled Mr.

Ocampo&s objections and denied his departure motion. The court then granted the

government&s downward departure motion under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual

§ 5K1.1, p.s. (1998) for substantial assistance. The district court sentenced Mr.

Ocampo to 172 months imprisonment and five years supervised release, and fined

him $2,500. Mr. Ocampo appeals and we affirm.

Mr. Ocampo argues the district court erred in counting his 1993 Illinois

conviction for unlawful use of a weapon in his criminal history score, because the

offense was “similar” to reckless driving or disorderly conduct--offenses excluded

from an offender&s criminal history score under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual

§ 4A1.2(c)(1) (1998). Assuming Mr. Ocampo&s argument was properly raised below,

we conclude his 1993 offense is not similar to that of reckless driving or disorderly

conduct, or to any of the other listed offenses. See United States v. Mitchell, 941

F.2d 690, 691 (8th Cir. 1991) (“similar” means “[n]early corresponding; resembling

in many respects; somewhat alike; having a general likeness”) (internal quotes and

citations omitted); cf. United States v. Ziglin, 964 F.2d 756, 758 (8th Cir. 1992)

(proper to count prior offense of exhibiting deadly weapon in threatening manner

where offense was not on exclusionary list of § 4A1.2(c)(1) or (c)(2) and was not

similar to such listed offenses).

We do not review Mr. Ocampo&s argument that the court erred in denying his

request for a departure motion based on an overrepresented criminal history score, as

the record reflects the district court&s decision was a discretionary one. See United

States v. Hall, 7 F.3d 1394, 1396 (8th Cir. 1993).
-3-

As to the two-level role-enhancement, we note initially that the government has

the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the facts support an

offense-level increase under section 3B1.1(c). See United States v. Edwards, 91 F.3d

1101, 1104 (8th Cir. 1996). After reviewing the record, we believe the district court

did not clearly err in finding that Mr. Ocampo was a leader, based on evidence

indicating that he was a significant participant in the two drug transactions carried out

pursuant to the conspiracy, that he was involved in planning the transactions, and that

he exercised decision-making authority. Among other things, the transactions did not

occur until Mr. Ocampo arrived in Oklahoma from California; it was Mr. Ocampo

who personally picked up a package of methamphetamine at a prearranged location

in connection with the conspiracy; the existence of utility bills in Mr. Ocampo&s name

at an apartment in Fort Smith, Arkansas, where police seized methamphetamine

indicates he was responsible financially for certain operating costs of an apartment

that served to facilitate the conspiracy; and Mr. Ocampo directed a confidential

informant at one point to drive a vehicle containing methamphetamine from

Oklahoma to Arkansas. See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 3B1.1, comment.

(n.4) (1998) (listing factors relevant to determination of role-in-the-offense

enhancement); United States v. Mayer, 130 F.3d 338, 340 (8th Cir. 1997) (this court

has broadly defined term “leader” under section 3B1.1); cf. Edwards, 91 F.3d at 1104

(affirming supervisor enhancement where evidence showed co-defendants worked

under defendant&s direction and control).

Accordingly, we affirm.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.