Opinion ID: 2980841
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Two-Level Upward Adjustment

Text: The district court applied a two-point enhancement to Pardue’s offense level because it deemed Pardue to be “an organizer, leader, manager, or supervisor” in criminal activity that did not involve five or more participants and was not otherwise extensive. U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1. As noted above, if improperly calculated, Pardue’s sentence would suffer from procedural error. Pardue argues that this was a procedural error for three reasons. First, the Government’s proof in support of the two-level adjustment was primarily the testimony of Agent Earle, who interviewed Pardue, Sneed, and Meroney while investigating their roles in the offense. Pardue 6 asserts that such evidence is inherently incredible because the interviewees were detained and “not free to leave.” Second, Pardue “at no time forced any individuals to engage in any criminal conduct.” Third, each of the participants “very much benefitted” from the criminal conduct, not just Pardue. Pardue’s argument that the district court improperly relied upon Agent Earle’s testimony is unavailing. As finder of fact, the district court was free to credit Agent Earle’s testimony. Agent Earle described Pardue’s process of obtaining genuine currency, obtaining equipment to create counterfeit currency, bleaching and reprinting currency, and attempting to pass it. More specifically, Agent Earle testified that Sneed told him that Pardue gave her counterfeit $100 bills and said that, if she could successfully pass the bills in commerce, she could keep $20 from the change. He also testified that Meroney said Pardue sent her to a grocery store on three occasions to obtain $5 bills that he could bleach and reprint in higher denominations. Finally, Agent Earle further stated that Meroney told him the enterprise was Pardue’s plan. Pardue’s argument that he was not a leader because he neither forced others to participate nor enjoyed the sole benefits of the criminal enterprise is similarly unpersuasive. The Guidelines provide that, “[i]f the defendant was an organizer, leader, manager, or supervisor” in any criminal activity that involved fewer than five participants or was not otherwise extensive, the offense level may be increased by two levels. U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1. Application Note 4 provides additional guidance as to who is a leader, organizer, manager, or supervisor. It states in relevant part: Factors the court should consider include 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 7 of participation in planning or organizing the offense, the nature and scope of the illegal activity, and the degree and scope of authority exercised over others. Id. at n.4. The Guidelines do not mention whether the defendant forced the participants to act, or whether the participants benefitted from their actions. We decline to read factors into the Guidelines that do not appear in the text. Furthermore, in keeping with the Guidelines’ application notes, we have previously advised that, in order to enhance a sentence under § 3B1.1, the district court should first make a factual finding that the defendant supervised at least one person. See United States v. Ward, 506 F.3d 468, 476 (6th Cir. 2007); see also U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1 n.2. In Ward, where the defendant had, on twenty occasions, directed another person to make crack cocaine deliveries on his behalf, this Court stated it was “implausible” that the defendant “was not exercising some degree of control” over his courier. Id. Thus, the enhancement was proper. Id. In the instant case, the district court appears to have made the advised factual findings. Agent Earle testified that Sneed told him Pardue “directed” her to pass the counterfeit bill that resulted in her (and Pardue’s) arrest. Additionally, according to Agent Earle’s testimony, Meroney stated that she and Pardue had been passing counterfeit currency “for approximately a month” prior to the arrest, that it was Pardue’s “plan,” and that he was primarily responsible for producing the counterfeit bills. The district court summarized Agent Earle’s testimony as demonstrating that Pardue “came up with the idea, . . . set it in motion, . . . claimed a right to a larger share of the fruits of the crime, . . . recruited others to participate, and [had] some degree of control and authority over [Sneed and Meroney].” Based on the record before us, and particularly in light of the Guidelines’ application notes, we believe that the district court reasonably concluded that Pardue organized, led, 8 managed, or supervised the crime. It therefore reasonably applied the enhancement and there was no abuse of discretion.