Opinion ID: 739683
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Independent Assertions of Error

Text: 58 In addition to the allegations of error regarding Borden and Dotey which Appellants raise jointly, they also bring independent assertions of error.
59 Shay asserts that his sentence was issued in violation of the ex post facto clause of the U.S. Constitution. He also argues that two sentence increases were improperly applied to him: the two-level Conscious or Reckless Risk of Serious Bodily Injury enhancement, and the twelve-level Fraud and Deceit Loss increase. He therefore asks that we vacate his sentence and remand for resentencing. 60 We begin by setting out the principles of law applicable to our review of a district court's application of the Sentencing Guidelines, which will apply to much of the section of this opinion addressing Herzog's claims as well as those of Shay. 61 Section 1B1.3 of the Guidelines provides that relevant conduct may be considered at sentencing as a reason for upward departure. U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual [hereinafter U.S.S.G.] § 1B1.3 (1989). Despite the contrary view held by some members of this court, see United States v. Frias, 39 F.3d 391, 392-94 (2d Cir.1994) (per curiam) (Oakes, J., concurring), cert. denied, 514 U.S. 1052, 115 S.Ct. 1433, 131 L.Ed.2d 313 (1995); United States v. Concepcion, 983 F.2d 369, 395-96 (2d Cir.1992) (Newman, J., dissenting from denial of en banc review), the Supreme Court recently confirmed the prior holdings of this court that the burden of proof for relevant conduct increases, including conduct of which the defendant has been acquitted, need only meet the preponderance of the evidence standard, not the higher clear and convincing evidence standard. United States v. Watts, --- U.S. ----, 117 S.Ct. 633, 136 L.Ed.2d 554 (1997) (per curiam); Concepcion, 983 F.2d at 388 (majority opinion); United States v. Gigante, 94 F.3d 53 (2d Cir.1996). We therefore must refuse Appellants' request that we apply a clear and convincing standard to certain of the points argued below, and instead review the district court's application of the preponderance standard. Of course, we review a district court's interpretation and application of the Guidelines de novo, United States v. Palmer, 68 F.3d 52, 54 (2d Cir.1995), and its findings of related fact for clear error, United States v. Ibanez, 924 F.2d 427, 430 (2d Cir.1991); 18 U.S.C. § 3742(e). 62
63 The district court sentenced Shay to 60 months' imprisonment and two years' supervised release, as well as a $50 assessment, for his conviction on the wire fraud charge. 64 Shay's primary argument at sentencing and here is premised upon the ex post facto clause, 15 which prohibits Congress from passing a law that increases the punishment for a crime after it has been committed. United States v. Harris, 79 F.3d 223, 228 (2d Cir.) (citing Collins v. Youngblood, 497 U.S. 37, 41-42, 110 S.Ct. 2715, 2718-19, 111 L.Ed.2d 30 (1990)), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 117 S.Ct. 142, 136 L.Ed.2d 89 (1996). Ordinarily, a court ought to apply the version of the Guidelines in effect at the time of sentencing. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(4)(A). If, however, there is an ex post facto problem, the version in effect at the time the offense occurred should be used. United States v. Paccione, 949 F.2d 1183, 1204 (2d Cir.1991); United States v. Adeniyi, 912 F.2d 615, 618 (2d Cir.1990). See also, U.S.S.G. § 1B1.11(b)(1) (1995) (If the court determines that use of the Guidelines Manual in effect on the date that the defendant is sentenced would violate the ex post facto clause of the United States Constitution, the court shall use the Guidelines Manual in effect on the date that the offense of conviction was committed.). An ex post facto problem arises if the version in effect at the time of sentencing  'makes more onerous the punishment for crimes committed before its enactment.'  Miller v. Florida, 482 U.S. 423, 435, 107 S.Ct. 2446, 2453-54, 96 L.Ed.2d 351 (1987) (quoting Weaver v. Graham, 450 U.S. 24, 36, 101 S.Ct. 960, 968, 67 L.Ed.2d 17 (1981)); accord, Paccione, 949 F.2d at 1204. 65 Shay objects to Judge Brieant's application of the November 1, 1989, Guidelines Manual which, he asserts, became effective after the wire fraud scheme was completed. Shay maintained at sentencing that as soon as they got a preliminary injunction from the court [in October 1989], no further representation was made to a trucker that further dumping was legal.... He asserted that, because the offense conduct for which he was convicted took place between February and early October of 1989, he could not constitutionally be sentenced under Guideline amendments which became effective after that time period, and his sentence must therefore be vacated and remanded. 66 If Shay is accurate in stating that his conduct ended in October of 1989, the trial court's use of the November 1989 Guidelines does violate ex post facto principles, because the later Manual yields a more onerous offense level--up to five levels higher--than does the earlier Manual. 16 The Government, however, argued that Shay's misconduct continued past October of 1989 and through 1992, by virtue of his attempt to re-open the landfill, with respect to misrepresentations to the victim, which is [PADER]. The Government therefore insisted that the date of the Count Five wire fraud offense, for Guidelines purposes, was the last day of that continuing misconduct. Shay responded by pointing out the Government's concession that the victims of the misconduct charged in the wire fraud were these truck drivers, not PADER. He argues that the facts alleged to support the continuance of the wire fraud scheme beyond October of 1989 concern a separate set of misconduct involving different actus rei and affecting different victims. Notably, the charges asserting misrepresentations against PADER were separately charged, and later dismissed pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P. 29(c). 67 Judge Brieant initially noted that all of the wire communications specified in the charge were alleged to have been made prior to November 1, 1989, and observed that if no later misrepresentations were alleged, the ex post facto clause would require application of those Guidelines in effect in October of 1989. He expressed his concern that the object of the wire fraud scheme could no longer be achieved once the dump closed on October 5th or 6th of 1989 and money was no longer being received from any trucker. Ultimately, though conceding that it was a close question, the judge imposed the November 1989 Guidelines in reliance on the dismissed PADER fraud counts, reasoning that even though a prima facie case was not made out on those counts, the conduct was relevant conduct which could be used as the basis for the enhancement. 68 The question which we must initially answer, therefore, is whether the conduct which was charged under Count Five can properly be held to include Shay's continuing conduct into 1992. We hold that it does not. Not only was the conduct against PADER separately charged, but the trial judge dismissed that charge for lack of a critical element--loss of money or property on PADER's part. This, along with the judge's initial comments at sentencing, indicates to us that the two counts are not properly subsumed into one huge scheme to defraud, as the Government asserts, but rather should be thought of as separate schemes to defraud separate victims. 69 As noted supra, uncharged or unconvicted relevant conduct, if proved by a preponderance of the evidence, may be considered when calculating the base sentence. As the judge noted, therefore, he could have properly considered the fraud against PADER as a relevant conduct enhancement to Shay's sentence, assuming the Government met the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence on that conduct. Unfortunately, this is not what the court actually did, and therefore Watts and Concepcion principles do not decide this case. Rather than applying an enhancement, the court seemed to meld together the two separate schemes and consider them as one large, continuing scheme of fraud. This was not appropriate. The judge was not permitted to alter the date on which the convicted conduct occurred to reflect the date on which unconvicted relevant conduct was committed. 70 Having decided that Count Five refers only to the fraud against the truckers and does not encompass fraud against PADER, the question we must answer, for ex post facto analysis, is a very narrow one: When uncharged or acquitted conduct occurs after the conduct of conviction, does the ex post facto clause prohibit application of Sentencing Guidelines applying to the later conduct rather than those in effect at the time the convicted conduct ended? The Commentary to the November 1995 Manual has addressed this specific constitutional issue, and states unequivocally that Congress did not intend for a particular set of Guidelines to apply to conduct which occurred prior to its passage: 71 Under subsection (b)(1), the last date of the offense of conviction is the controlling date for ex post facto purposes. For example, if the offense of conviction (i.e., the conduct charged in the count of the indictment or information of which the defendant was convicted) was determined by the court to have been committed between October 15, 1991 and October 28, 1991, the date of October 28, 1991 is the controlling date for ex post facto purposes. This is true even if the defendant's conduct relevant to the determination of the guideline range under § 1B1.3 (Relevant Conduct) included an act that occurred on November 2, 1991 (after a revised Guideline Manual took effect). 72 U.S.S.G. § 1B1.11 comment. (n.2) (Nov.1995). This set of Guidelines thus requires the district court to determine the last date of the offense of conviction, and instructs that the date of relevant conduct may not be substituted for the date of convicted conduct. Although we are not compelled to rely upon this Commentary because it is not incorporated in either of the Manuals considered here, we find it to be highly persuasive evidence of the Sentencing Commission's intent. Because it comports with ex post facto considerations, we happily utilize it in our interpretation of the Guidelines. We therefore hold that Judge Brieant's use of the November 1989 Guidelines to sentence Shay for a course of conduct which ended in October 1989 violated the ex post facto clause. 73 Shay's sentence is vacated and remanded for re-sentencing in accordance with the Guidelines in effect during October 1989. Upon resentencing, the court may take into account any secondary conduct proved by a preponderance of the evidence. We caution the court, however, that if it finds such relevant conduct occurred, Shay's penalty may only be increased to the extent permitted under § 1B1.3 of the Guidelines in effect in October of 1989, even if the relevant conduct occurred when the November 1, 1989, Guidelines were in effect. We so instruct the court in reliance upon the one-book rule. See United States v. Keller, 58 F.3d 884, 890 (2d Cir.1995) (A sentencing court has no authority to pick and choose, taking one provision from an earlier version of the guidelines and another from a later version. We adhere to the so-called 'one-book rule' that most other circuits use to avoid twisting the guidelines, depriving them of uniformity and consistency.). See also, United States v. Bertoli, 40 F.3d 1384, 1404 n. 17 (3rd Cir.1994) ([W]hen ex post facto clause issues arise, while the one-book rule cannot apply to compel application of the later Manual to all counts, it can certainly compel application of the earlier Manual.). 74
75 Having determined that the court improperly utilized the November 1989 Guidelines, our task becomes simpler and the district court's more burdensome with regard to Shay's other assertions of error. First, he argues that the district court improperly imposed a two-point enhancement for Shay's conscious or reckless risk of serious bodily injury pursuant to § 2F1.1(b)(4) (1989). The court imposed the sentence in consideration of Shay's asserted disregard for the health of his neighbors, whose water wells were contaminated by the waste in the Matamoras landfill. Although Appellants and the Government have fully briefed the issue of whether Shay's conduct constituted conscious or reckless risk of serious bodily injury, as defined by § 1B1.1, comment. (n.1(j)), we need not address that point. The § 2F1.1(b)(4) enhancement was not in effect until the November 1989 version of the Manual, and thus Shay cannot be sentenced in consideration of it. 17 We therefore remand for resentencing in consideration of the October 1989 Guidelines. 18 76 We likewise must remand for recalculation of the Fraud and Deceit Loss for which Shay was responsible. The PSR's calculation of the loss under § 2F1.1(b)(1) (1989) determined that a 12-level enhancement was appropriate based on an estimate of between $1,500,000 and $2,500,000 in loss, nearly the entire amount grossed by TSLD between February and October 1989. Appellants asked the court to make particularized findings as to what amount of fraud was attributable to Shay, and asked that the court find both what conduct or acts were within the scope of the defendant's agreement to participate in the jointly undertaken criminal activity and whether the jointly undertaken criminal activity was reasonably foreseeable to the defendant. Shay contended that only the receipts available during September and October of 1989 were reasonably attributable to him. At sentencing, the court made no particularized findings on this point, but stated that an awful lot or a considerable amount of the materials dumped at the site were known by Shay to be in non-compliance with what PADER was shown on the April 1989 visit to the transfer stations, and that such non-complying dumping continued almost throughout the period. 77 Two issues are at play here: a legal issue, again relating to ex post facto considerations, and a factual issue, relating to Shay's criminal liability. Under the Guidelines in effect in October of 1989, even if Shay actually was responsible for between $1,500,000 and $2,500,000 in loss, his base sentence would only be increased by either 9 or 10 levels, not 12 levels. § 2F1.1(b)(1)(J)-(K) (1988). Upon remand, the court is to consider that version of the Guidelines, and to likewise reconsider the second factual issue, whether Shay can be held responsible for the entire fraud amount, in the light of the language and policies enunciated in that version of § 1B1.3 and § 2F1.1(b)(1).
78
79 Appellant Herzog asserts that the trial judge improperly denied his post-trial motion to dismiss Counts Twenty-Seven, Twenty-Eight, and corresponding Racketeering Act Twenty for insufficient evidence. The Government asserts the following facts: 80 In July 1990, Herzog and attorney John Zagari met with engineers employed by CHMR to discuss CHMR's performing of sampling and testing operations at the Matamoras site. Herzog and Zagari falsely told the CHMR engineers that PADER had approved the previous dumping at Matamoras. Herzog and Zagari then insisted that a CHMR report conclude that more fill should be brought into the site and that nothing needed to be removed from the site. 81 When CHMR began sampling by trenching at the Matamoras site in August 1990, heavy concentrations of hydrogen sulfide gas emerged from the ground. Because such explosive gas presented a danger to workers and the community, the trenching was immediately terminated and CHMR began to use test borings as a safer sampling method. PADER continued to insist that the site be cleared and emptied and that CHMR's report address and evaluate removal remedies. 82 Despite Zagari's efforts to dictate the contents of CHMR's report by threatening the CHMR employee responsible for preparing the report, CHMR's draft December 1990 report indicated that the debris at Matamoras reflected a very high percentage of wood in the material; that decomposition of the structural lumber in the debris had caused the high levels of hydrogen sulfide gas detected at the site; and that one recommended corrective measure was removal of the existing waste. The draft report did not propose the addition of more C & D debris. After receiving this draft report, Zagari sent CHMR his redraft of the text of CHMR's recommendations, making them consistent with Herzog's earlier demands. Then, in a series of meetings and conversations with CHMR representatives, Zagari made it clear that CHMR would not be paid unless the report included the proposals that Zagari and Herzog demanded. Herzog and Zagari also told CHMR they would be paid only after filling operations recommenced. 83 Thereafter, a final report was provided to Zagari in which no conclusions were contained in the text of the report (instead, conclusions were in a separate cover letter); the wood content of the fill was reported to be within a falsely understated range; a reason offered for not removing the fill was the explosive nature of the hydrogen sulfide gas; the addition of more fill material was listed as the preferred remediation proposal; and removal of the offending debris was not addressed or evaluated in any way as a corrective option. After defendants received this final report, they stopped making payments to CHMR. 84 The prosecution alleged in counts Twenty-Seven and Twenty-Eight that Herzog schemed to obtain a favorable report on the Matamoras landfill by falsely promising to pay CHMR for that report. Three former CHMR employees testified in support of these charges: Robert Clarke, Donald Barshter and Michael Poe. After trial, Herzog moved to dismiss Counts Twenty-Seven and Twenty-Eight as well as RICO Act 20, asserting that no evidence was presented from which a rational jury could infer that defendants made false promises to pay CHMR. The undisputed testimony, according to Herzog, is that CHMR's bill had been paid in full, and that the company had undertaken a subsequent project for the defendants. 85 In denying Herzog's motion, the district court stated that defense counsel made a tactical decision [at trial] to omit ... proof of the purported post-1990 payments to CHMR. That decision ... cannot be a basis now to overturn an otherwise proper conviction by a trial jury. Herzog argues that the court thereby impermissibly shifted the burden of proof: It was the Government's burden to show that CHMR had not been paid, not Herzog's burden to show that it had. He states that, because no rational jury could conclude from the evidence in the record that CHMR had not been paid, the two Counts and the Act must be dismissed. 86 A challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting conviction by jury trial is viewed in the light most favorable to the Government. See Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 80, 62 S.Ct. 457, 469, 86 L.Ed. 680 (1942); United States v. Amiel, 95 F.3d 135, 141 (2d Cir.1996) (quoting United States v. Badalamenti, 794 F.2d 821, 828 (2d Cir.1986)). The verdict will be sustained unless no rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 2789, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979). Count Twenty-Seven charged wire fraud; Count Twenty-Eight charged mail fraud.  ' [T]he essential elements of a mail [or wire] fraud violation are (1) a scheme to defraud, (2) money or property [as the object of the scheme], and (3) use of the mails [or wires] to further the scheme. '  United States v. Dinome, 86 F.3d 277, 283 (2d Cir.1996) (quoting United States v. Miller, 997 F.2d 1010, 1017 (2d Cir.1993) (quoting United States v. Wallach, 935 F.2d 445, 461 (2d Cir.1991))) (alterations in original, some alterations in Miller ). See also Amiel, 95 F.3d at 142 (mail fraud only). 87 Herzog's argument misses the mark, because it is based on the erroneous assumption that the Government needed to prove that CHMR had not been paid. In fact, it needed only to present evidence from which a juror could rationally infer that Herzog had intended to defraud CHMR. To establish the existence of a scheme to defraud, the government must present proof that the defendants possessed a fraudulent intent.... [T]he government is not required to show that the intended victim was actually defrauded[, but] need only show that the defendants contemplated some actual harm or injury. Wallach, 935 F.2d at 461 (citations omitted) (discussing mail fraud); see United States v. Gelb, 700 F.2d 875, 879 (2d Cir.1983) (same); Dinome, 86 F.3d at 283 (discussing mail and wire fraud). The evidence at trial was sufficient to show intent to defraud CHMR. See Gelb, 700 F.2d at 880 ([P]roof need only be sufficient to establish a specific intent [to defraud, which] need not necessarily be proved by direct evidence, but may also be inferred from the defendant's actions and other circumstantial evidence.). The trial court thus properly denied Herzog's Rule 29(c) motion to dismiss those counts. 88
89 Herzog next asserts that the district court improperly applied three different sentencing guideline increases to his sentence, and that his sentence should therefore be vacated and remanded. 19 1) Obstruction of Justice 90 Section 3C1.1 of the November 1995 Guidelines provides: If the defendant willfully obstructed or impeded, or attempted to obstruct or impede, the administration of justice during the investigation, prosecution, or sentencing of the instant offense a two-level increase is warranted. In imposing this increase to Herzog's sentence, the court relied heavily upon the Presentence Report (PSR). The PSR reported PADER's 1990 civil enforcement action against, inter alia, Herzog, and described his related January 16, 1991, deposition as being replete with fraudulent statements with regard to virtually every aspect of the Matamoras site. The PSR stated that, while Herzog was not charged with perjury, it is our position that his offering of counterfeit statements was indeed purposeful, and as such, constitutes the obstruction of justice. 91 In finding that there were indications of Herzog's significant guilty knowledge which led him to perjure himself in the civil case, the sentencing court stated that the activities of the PADER lawsuit, which while they required an indictment, occurred after the FBI was investigating the matter and probably at the incentive or instance and request of PADER, among others. It is adequate to support an adjustment for intentional efforts to impede an ongoing investigation. The court thus found that Herzog was aware of the federal investigation and that his knowledge of it was the motivation for his perjury in the state deposition. 92 Herzog counters, however, that even if the judge believed that perjury occurred in the related state civil regulatory suit, that should not constitute a basis for an obstruction of justice enhancement in this criminal federal action. Certainly, there are circumstances in which perjury in a state civil action would be utterly irrelevant to a federal criminal matter, even if the same defendant were involved. Here, however, the connection between the two cases is quite close. We agree with the district court's conclusion that, here, perjury in the civil action could constitute obstruction of justice in the instant federal offense. 93 In order for the court to properly reach the conclusion that Herzog's statements in the state deposition did actually warrant imposition of the § 3C1.1 obstruction of justice enhancement, the court was required to make certain findings. Application of § 3C1.1 generally requires findings of willfulness and materiality. See U.S.S.G. § C1.1 comment. (n.3(d),(f)-(h)). The willfulness requirement means that the enhancement is appropriate only upon a finding that the defendant had the 'specific intent to obstruct justice, i.e., that the defendant consciously acted with the purpose of obstructing justice.'  United States v. Defeo, 36 F.3d 272, 276 (2d Cir.1994) (citation omitted); see also United States v. Reed, 49 F.3d 895, 900 (2d Cir.1995) ([T]he term 'willfully' implies a mens rea requirement.), aff'd after remand, 88 F.3d 174 (2d Cir.1996). 94 An enhancement for obstruction of justice may therefore be granted if the court finds that the defendant willfully and materially impeded the search for justice in the instant offense. Such obstruction can be accomplished in many ways, one of which is the giving of perjured testimony. If a court chooses to rely upon allegedly perjured testimony as a basis for application of the enhancement, however, it must make specific findings which indicate that the judge has considered all of the elements of perjury, including materiality, and has found that they have all been met. United States v. Dunnigan, 507 U.S. 87, 92-95, 113 S.Ct. 1111, 1115-17, 122 L.Ed.2d 445 (1993) required that, before applying this enhancement on the basis of apparent perjury, a sentencing court must explicitly find that the defendant gave false testimony concerning a material matter with the willful intent to provide false testimony, rather than as a result of confusion, mistake or faulty memory--i.e., that the defendant committed perjury rather than simply providing false testimony. Id. at 94, 113 S.Ct. at 1116. Dunnigan went on to hold that this requirement could be met if the court makes a finding of obstruction of justice which encompasses all of the factual predicates for perjury, though noting that distinct findings on each element of the alleged perjury were preferable. We have held that a finding of perjury must include findings that the witness gave false testimony concerning a material matter with the willful intent to provide false testimony. See United States v. Catano-Alzate, 62 F.3d 41, 43 (2d Cir.1995) (per curiam); see also, United States v. Williams, 79 F.3d 334, 337-38 (2d Cir.1996) (sentencing court must make finding of willful perjury even if defendant's testimony was so inherently untruthful that factual predicates to perjury were obvious); United States v. Cox, 985 F.2d 427, 432-33 (8th Cir.1993). 95 Our law to date, therefore, provides that in order to base a § 3C1.1 enhancement upon the giving of perjured testimony, a sentencing court must find that the defendant 1) willfully 2) and materially 3) committed perjury, which is (a) the intentional (b) giving of false testimony (c) as to a material matter. 96 Judge Brieant's express finding that Herzog committed perjury and was motivated to do so by the existence of the federal investigation is adequate to meet the willfulness requirement, as well as elements a and b of the third perjury finding. We do not believe, however, that the court addressed the second element of materiality nor the third materiality prong of the perjury element. 97 We understand the materiality element to mean ordinarily that the intentional giving of false testimony must be material to the proceeding in which it is given. In other words, Herzog can be found to have committed perjury in the state proceeding only if the sentencing court finds that he intentionally gave false testimony which was material to the state civil action. Dunnigan requires this finding prior to application of the enhancement based on perjury. 98 This case presents an additional twist. Where, as here, the enhancement is applied based upon perjury made not in the instant judicial proceeding, but, rather, in a related but separate state action, we must assume that the element of materiality which is required by the Guidelines (as opposed to that required for a finding of perjury) must refer to a finding that the false testimony is material to the instant action. Just because perjured testimony is given in a related action, and simply because that testimony is found to have been material to the related proceeding, does not mean that the statements are material to the instant proceeding. We believe that, even if the court finds that Herzog's statements constituted perjury because they were material to the state proceeding, it must also find that the perjury was material to the instant federal offense before applying that state perjury as the basis for a § 3C1.1 enhancement of his federal sentence. We thus hold that, when false testimony in a related but separate judicial proceeding is raised as the basis for a § 3C1.1 obstruction of justice enhancement, a sentencing court may only apply the enhancement upon making specific findings that the defendant intentionally gave false testimony which was material to the proceeding in which it was given, that the testimony was made willfully, i.e., with the specific purpose of obstructing justice, 20 and that the testimony was material to the instant offense. 99 The sentencing court did not make findings with respect to either aspect of materiality. Although Judge Brieant found that the false state deposition was motivated by the instant federal offense, motivation alone does not equate to materiality. We therefore vacate Herzog's sentence and remand for additional findings. 2) Duress/Aggravating Role 100 Herzog argued at sentencing that the real manager and supervisor of the criminal activity was Alphonse D'Arco, a high-ranking member of the Luchese Crime Family with an alleged hidden interest in the Matamoras landfill. He insists that his own apparent authority derived from D'Arco's duress, coercion and blackmail. On appeal, he argues that the court violated his Due Process rights by failing to subpoena D'Arco to testify in an evidentiary hearing on this matter, and that the court thereby erroneously applied a four-level increase, pursuant to § 3B1.1(a), as a result of Herzog's leadership role in the crimes charged. Both his argument at sentencing and his appeal to us seem to blend two issues: whether a downward departure should be granted on the basis of duress pursuant to § 5K2.12, and whether an upward departure should be applied on the basis of aggravating role pursuant to § 3B1.1(a). Although [g]enerally ... a failure to depart downwardly is not appealable[,] .... if the due process right asserted by appellants exists and the denial of a departure violated that right, the constitutional aspects of the denial would be appealable. Gigante, 94 F.3d at 56 n. 2 (citing United States v. Colon, 905 F.2d 580 (2d Cir.1990)). We thus will address both issues, as did the district court. 101 Section 5K2.12 provides that the court may depart downwardly [i]f the defendant committed the offense because of serious coercion, blackmail or duress, which [O]rdinarily ... will be sufficiently serious to warrant departure only when it involves a threat of physical injury, substantial damage to property or similar injury resulting from the unlawful action of a third party.... Section 3B1.1(a) provides for an increase of four levels [i]f the defendant was an organizer or leader of a criminal activity that involved five or more participants or was otherwise extensive.... U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(a) (1995). The sentencing court is entitled to broad discretion in resolving disputed factual issues, including an assessment of the credibility of witnesses. E.g., United States v. Beverly, 5 F.3d 633, 642 (2d Cir.1993). The court also enjoys broad discretion on the decision of whether an evidentiary hearing is necessary, see Ibanez, 924 F.2d at 430, and the Due Process Clause does not mandate that the court conduct a full-blown evidentiary hearing, United States v. Olvera, 954 F.2d 788, 792 (2d Cir.1992). 102 The district court found Herzog's assertion that he was coerced into his conduct to be almost ... frivolous in light of Herzog's close dealings with the Luchese Family. 21 The court's determination that Herzog was not subjected to duress and corresponding refusal to subpoena D'Arco was not erroneous and did not constitute a violation of due process. After reviewing the trial transcript, we agree that [h]ardly have we ever known anyone who was so willingly duressed. We find no error in the trial court's refusal to depart downwardly on the basis of duress. 103 Likewise, we believe that the court correctly disregarded Herzog's allegation that D'Arco was the true leader of the Matamoras scheme, and held that Herzog's sentence should be enhanced based upon his leadership role. This circuit, however, requires a sentencing court to make two specific findings prior to imposing any offense-role enhancement: (i) that the defendant was 'an organizer or leader,' and (ii) that the criminal activity either 'involved five or more participants' or 'was otherwise extensive.'  United States v. Patasnik, 89 F.3d 63, 68 (2d Cir.1996); see United States v. Fermin, 32 F.3d 674, 682 (2d Cir.1994) (remanding because district court failed to make finding as to whether defendant was manager or supervisor), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1170, 115 S.Ct. 1145, 130 L.Ed.2d 1104 (1995). While the court expressly found that Herzog acted as a manager, it failed to make findings with respect to the issues of whether five or more persons were involved in the criminal activity or whether the activity was otherwise extensive. 22 Without this finding, the more appropriate enhancement would be the two-level increase permitted by § 3B1.1(c), which applies to organizers or leaders of non-extensive criminal activities. See United States v. Carrozzella, 105 F.3d 796, 802-05 (2d Cir.1997). We therefore remand for additional fact-finding on this second necessary finding. 104 3) Enhancement for $500,000 in Laundered Monies 105 Finally, Herzog argues that the district court improperly added three points, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2S1.1(b)(2)(D), for his having laundered over $500,000. Herzog asserts that this figure represents the total amount of allegedly laundered funds charged in all 28 money laundering counts and 14 related racketeering acts, despite the fact that he was acquitted of all but six of the money laundering counts and three of the related racketeering acts. Because the amount of laundered money corresponding to those charges and acts is only $70,000, Herzog argues that he should have received no increase, per § 2S1.1(b)(2)(A). 106 Herzog first again makes the argument relating to the district court's refusal to subpoena D'Arco, which we have already rejected. Because, he asserts, D'Arco's testimony would possibly have provided more information as to the amount of money actually laundered, his due process rights are violated by the imposition of this enhancement without issuance of a subpoena for an evidentiary hearing. For the reasons enunciated supra, we reject this argument. 107 Second, Herzog raises the issue which we have already dealt with in our discussion of Shay's sentencing enhancements--the use of the preponderance of the evidence standard of review on unconvicted conduct. We have already declined Appellant's invitation to re-visit this matter. In light of the pre-sentence report findings, we find that the district court properly applied the lower preponderance standard to enhance Herzog's sentence in accordance with the entire $500,000 laundered amount. We therefore affirm the court's sentence in this regard.