Opinion ID: 2709408
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Role‐In‐The‐Crime Enhancement

Text: The district court applied a four‐level enhancement to Rosen’s sentence, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(a), after deter‐ mining that Rosen was an organizer or leader of a criminal activity that involved five or more participants or was other‐ wise extensive. Whether a defendant exercised a leadership or managerial role in the charged offense is a determination that we review for clear error. United States v. Johnson, 489 F.3d 794, 796 (7th Cir. 2007). The “central concern” of § 3B1.1 is the defendant’s relative responsibility for the commission of the offense. United States v. Vasquez, 673 F.3d 680, 685 (7th Cir. 2012) (citing United States v. Mendoza, 576 F.3d 711, 717 (7th Cir. 2009)). In making that determination, the district court should consider factors such as “the defendant’s decision‐making authority, nature of participation, recruitment of accomplices, claimed right to a larger share of the fruits of the crime, role in planning and organizing, scope of illegal activity, and control and authority exercised over others.” Vasquez, 673 F.3d at 685 (citing U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1 cmt. n.4; United States v. Knox, 624 F.3d 865, 874 (7th Cir. 2010)). In order to appropriately apply a § 3B1.1(a) adjustment to a defendantʹs sentence, “the defendant must 14 No. 12‐2101 have exercised some degree of control over others involved in the commission of the offense or he must have been responsible for organizing others for the purpose of carrying out the crime.” Vasquez, 673 F.3d at 685 (citing Knox, 624 F. 3d at 874). Even though the record clearly reflects that Rosen was the sole mastermind behind this scheme, and recruited additional accomplices as he deemed necessary, he argues that this enhancement was in error as he was not the organizer of a unified criminal plot. Rosen admits he had “associations” with people he used to further his criminal conduct, however, he argues that those associates’ roles were too limited in scope and objective for them to be considered participants in a larger, cohesive criminal scheme. The Presentence Report identified seven individuals who participated in Rosen’s scheme. Rosen concedes he recruited each of these individuals, but he argues that he solicited each person only as his need for their individ‐ ual services arose. Meaning each individual was solicited by Rosen for a specific objective rather than all acting in concert within a larger unitary criminal scheme, and he did not exercise authority or control over the participants. Relying on United States v. Wasz 450 F.3d 720 (7th Cir. 2006), the district court found that Rosen’s organizational role consisted of “efforts to marshal other individuals for the purpose of executing the crime” thereby satisfying § 3B1.1(a). Id. at 730. Rosen argues his case is distinguishable from Wasz because here there was no unified scheme; rather each partici‐ pant was recruited by Rosen to perform a specific role (such as creating a fictitious tax return) and there is insufficient evi‐ dence to suggest that all these participants were working No. 12‐2101 15 towards the same end. We disagree. In Wasz, we noted that though the defendants contracted individually with each co‐ defendant, their actions still reflected “a guiding influence over the other participants in the offense.” Id. Here, we agree with Rosen that he recruited each additional participant to perform specific illegal handiwork, but that does not diminish his culpability as an organizer under § 3B1.1(a). Rosen alone owned Kully Construction, the “development” business at the center of this fraud scheme, and he alone had decision‐making control over every aspect of this crime. Rosen chose who was recruited, for what purpose, and solely determined each participant’s appropriate compensation. For example, Hawkins was a secretary Rosen solicited to pose as Kully’s fictional CEO. In exchange, Rosen promised her future employment in the company. It is clear that Rosen was in control of this ploy all along. He recruited and compensated his cohorts as needed to bring his fraudulent plan to its intended conclusion. We find no clear error in the the district court’s determination that Rosen was the organizer of this brazen scheme and deserving of a four‐level enhancement pursuant to § 3B1.1.(a).