Opinion ID: 2673069
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Sufficiency of Evidence of Leadership

Text: Ramírez further argues that the evidence of his leadership role in the conspiracy was insufficient to justify the district court's finding that he was a leader, which triggered a two-level Guidelines enhancement. This argument, however, is waived because Ramírez explicitly abandoned it during the sentencing hearing. At the final hearing, the following exchange took place: THE COURT: . . . You realize that I read a transcript that [Ramírez] is also a leader. -21- Your leader undoubtedly. I don't think you are challenging the two point that is are [sic] being provided, right. MR. RIVERA: No. No. Those two points no. It is gist [sic] if I could argue for just a little bit.9 When asked directly, in other words, counsel for Ramírez explicitly abandoned any challenge to the leadership enhancement. This waived any argument that the evidence did not show Ramírez's leadership role. See United States v. Rodriguez, 311 F.3d 435, 437 (1st Cir. 2002). Even if Ramírez had not waived this argument, we would still find the two-level enhancement justified. The Guidelines provide that, when contemplating a leadership enhancement, courts should consider factors such as: the exercise of decision making authority, the nature of participation in the commission of the offense, the recruitment of accomplices, the claimed right to a larger share of the fruits of the crime, the degree of participation in planning or organizing the offense, the nature and scope of the illegal activity, and the degree of control and authority exercised over others. U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1, cmt. (n.4) (2012). Here, the district court heard evidence that Ramírez had been entitled to all the profits for heroin sold at the Kennedy drug point, and that he was an owner of the Salistral drug point. Together with his role as a 9 Ramírez's counsel went on to reiterate the argument that the drug quantity calculation was not supported by reliable evidence, then turned to mitigating factors. -22- wholesale supplier across several different drug points, this evidence shows, at a minimum, that Ramírez had claimed a right to a larger share of the criminal profits, performed a greater degree of planning or organizing the offenses, engaged in a wide scope of the illegal activity, and exercised a substantial degree of control and authority over others. That is sufficient to justify the leadership enhancement.