Opinion ID: 68172
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: bell’s role as manager or supervisor

Text: Bell argues that the district court erred by determining that he held a managerial or supervisory role in the criminal conspiracy because he only cooked crack cocaine and delivered it to street vendors. Relying on United States v. Alred, 144 F.3d 1405 (11th Cir. 1998), Bell argues that no evidence exists that shows that he recruited workers, acted in a supervisory capacity, or received a disproportionate share of the conspiracy’s profits. A district court’s determination of a defendant’s role in the offense is a finding of fact to be reviewed only for clear error. United States v. De Varon, 175 F.3d 930, 937 (11th Cir. 1999) (en banc); see also U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(c) (providing for a two-level increase in offense level to a defendant who was an organizer, leader, manager, or supervisor of fewer than five other participants in any criminal activity that was not otherwise extensive). We have held that a district court’s decision that is supported by the record and applies the law properly will rarely be clearly erroneous. De Varon, 175 F.3d at 945. In distinguishing a leadership or organizational role from a managerial or supervisory role, the district court should consider the following factors: (1) exercise of decision making authority, (2) nature of participation in the commission of the offense, (3) recruitment of accomplices, (4) claimed right to a larger share of the fruits of the crime, (5) degree of 6 participation in planning or organizing the offense, (6) nature and scope of the illegal activity, and (7) degree of control and authority exercised over others. U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1, comment. (n.4). To qualify as a manager or supervisor, the defendant must assert control or influence over at least one other participant in the crime. United States v. Campa, 529 F.3d 980, 1013 (11th Cir. 2008); see also U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1, comment. (n.2) (“To qualify for an adjustment under this section, the defendant must have been the organizer, leader, manager, or supervisor of one or more other participants.”). In addition, a defendant’s status as a “middleman or distributor” is insufficient to receive the enhancement. United States v. Yates, 990 F.2d 1179, 1182 (11th Cir. 1993); Alred, 144 F.3d at 1422. But see United States v. Perry, 340 F.3d 1216, 1217 (11th Cir. 2003) (listing the act of paying another member of the conspiracy for transporting drugs as a factor supporting the § 3B1.1 enhancement). The district court did not commit clear error in finding that Bell had a managerial or leadership role in the criminal conspiracy, and thus warranted the two-level enhancement under § 3B1.1(c) (rather than the four-level enhancement sought by the government). Bell supplied drugs to another member of the conspiracy when the street level sellers ran out, and he collected the proceeds after the drugs were sold. Furthermore, Bell was more than a “middleman or 7 distributor” because he paid other members of the conspiracy to distribute the drugs. Upon review of the record and consideration of the parties’ briefs, we discern no reversible error. Therefore, the sentence is affirmed. AFFIRMED. 8