Opinion ID: 543785
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Adjustments to Base Offense Levels

Text: 23 The district court adjusted Johnson's offense level upward by three points for his role as a manager or supervisor in the drug distribution ring under Guidelines Sec. 3B1.1(b) and then granted a two-level decrease for Johnson's acceptance of responsibility under Guidelines Sec. 3E1.1. Johnson now contests the three-level increase, and the government challenges the downward adjustment. 24 Johnson agreed to the three-point increase in the district court, but now contends that he was coerced into accepting the three-level increase because his counsel agreed to accept it without his knowledge. When Johnson voiced dissatisfaction with the increase, the court warned him that he risked losing the acceptance of responsibility decrease. Johnson now characterizes the district court's warning as a threat that forced him to accept the manager role increase. 25 The government asserts there was insufficient evidence of Johnson's acceptance of responsibility to warrant a downward adjustment. The government also contends the district court misallocated the burden of proof, placing it on the government, which was moving to oppose the reduction, instead of on Johnson as the defendant seeking the adjustment. The government cites Fourth Circuit cases which have placed the burden of proof on the defendant. United States v. Urrego-Linares, 879 F.2d 1234, 1238-39 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 110 S.Ct. 346, 107 L.Ed.2d 334 (1989); United States v. Harris, 882 F.2d 902, 906-07 (4th Cir.1989). 26 We defer to the district court's decision on both of these issues. We grant the sentencing court great deference when reviewing its evaluation of a defendant's acceptance of responsibility, and we will disturb the district court's decision only if it is without foundation. Guidelines Sec. 3E1.1, Application Note 5; United States v. Grimes, 899 F.2d 731 (8th Cir.1990); United States v. Nunley, 873 F.2d 182, 187 (8th Cir.1989). The district court observed that while Johnson was unwilling to accept responsibility for the totality of the jury's verdict, he did admit to substantial involvement. Johnson's role as a manager or supervisor is amply borne out by the record, which shows the breadth of his connections and distributions in the drug enterprise conspiracy. The district court did not improperly link Johnson's acceptance of the managerial role in the enterprise to acceptance of responsibility; by accepting the increase in his offense level in the district court, Johnson acknowledged the extent of his culpability in the entire drug enterprise. The district court could not be expected to know of the lack of communication between Johnson and his counsel. In the end, the arrangement no doubt worked to Johnson's advantage because the district court could have justifiably applied the managerial role increase even if Johnson had chosen to contest it. We do not find the district court's factual determinations clearly erroneous. 27 Ramirez also contests the district court's four-level upward adjustment to his base offense level for acting as a leader or organizer. Ramirez contends that there is no direct evidence that he was a superior to anyone else involved in the drug conspiracy. A finding that a defendant is functioning as an organizer or leader, however, does not necessarily mean that he is directly controlling other individuals. Ramirez' record shows that he recruited Casas-Torres into the enterprise and instructed him on the techniques of drug dealing. He directed the deliveries of cocaine to Chicago. He was the supplier to Casas-Torres' and Johnson's entire cocaine distribution scheme. Accordingly, the district court correctly adjusted Ramirez' offense level upward for his role as an organizer and leader.