Opinion ID: 699303
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Perez's Enhancement for Role in the Offense

Text: 28 Perez asserts that the district court erred in enhancing his offense level by two levels because the court found he was an organizer, leader, manager, or supervisor in the criminal activity. See U.S.S.G. Sec. 3B1.1(c). He also contends that the district court erred in enhancing his sentence two points because the evidence does not support the court's finding that he engaged in more than minimal planning. He further asserts that the court could not enhance his sentence for more than minimal planning because U.S.S.G. Sec. 2J1.2, the guideline under which he was sentenced, does not provide for this enhancement.
29 We review the district court's determination of Perez's role in the offense for clear error. United States v. Young, 39 F.3d 1561, 1568 (11th Cir.1994). Connelly's testimony revealed that Perez: had a close, brother-like relationship with Ryan; made several phone calls to Ryan; moved around the cell to talk to the other defendants; summoned Connelly to the back of the cell; and was the first to accuse Connelly of testifying against Ryan. In light of this evidence, we conclude that there is sufficient evidence to support the court's conclusion that Perez was a leader in the attack on Connelly. See U.S.S.G. Sec. 3B1.1, comment. (n. 4) (factors to be considered in determining a leadership role include: the nature of the participation in the commission of the offense, the recruitment of accomplices ... [and] the degree of participation in planning or organizing the offense).
30 U.S.S.G. Sec. 1B1.1(f) sets forth three circumstances under which more than minimal planning exists: (1) if the defendant undertook more planning than is typical for commission of the offense in a simple form; (2) if significant affirmative steps were taken to conceal the offense; or (3) in any case involving repeated acts over a period of time, unless it is clear that each instance was purely opportune. The district court concluded that Perez, by his telephone conversation with Ryan, effectuated more than minimal planning in the retaliation against the witness Connelly. We cannot agree. 31 We review the district court's finding of more than minimal planning for clear error. See United States v. Garcia, 13 F.3d 1464, 1470 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 114 S.Ct. 2723, 129 L.Ed.2d 847 (1994). This enhancement is usually applied to sophisticated crimes or offenses requiring repeated acts over a period of time. United States v. Cropper, 42 F.3d 755, 758 (2d Cir.1994). In this case, Perez did not formulate a sophisticated plan or an elaborate scheme. There was no evidence, for example, that Perez took steps to have Connelly placed in the cell with him. Although Perez did place a phone call to ascertain that Connelly planned to testify against Ryan, the phone call was made immediately prior to the attack. The crime therefore did not involve more planning than typical for the commission of this offense. Further, Perez took no steps to conceal the crime from the jail officials and the crime did not involve repeated acts over a period of time. We therefore hold that the court clearly erred in concluding that Perez effectuated more than minimal planning in the retaliation against Connelly. See id. at 758-59 (court clearly erred in finding that defendant engaged in more than minimal planning; defendant committed a simple theft and took no steps to conceal the crime). 10 Accordingly, we VACATE Perez's sentence and REMAND for resentencing.