Opinion ID: 200902
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Role in the Offense Adjustment

Text: The district court gave Denaro a three-level enhancement pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(b) because it determined that he was a manager or supervisor of a criminal activity that involved five or more persons. Denaro does not challenge the district court’s determination that he was a manager or supervisor. Instead, he faults the court for failing to specifically identify the participants in the conspiracy and argues that the record doesn’t support the court’s general finding that the conspiracy involved at least five such participants. Denaro’s first argument fails because we have determined that a sentencing court need not make specific findings when applying a role adjustment if “the record clearly reflects the basis of the court’s determination.” See United States v. MarreroOrtiz, 160 F.3d 768, 779 (1st Cir. 1998). Only four persons in addition to the defendant are needed to satisfy the five person requirement, see United States v. Preakos, 907 F.2d 7, 10 (1st Cir. 1990), and the PSR specifically identified four of the defendant’s -8- coconspirators as participants. Under these circumstances, the court did not need to specifically name the participants to justify its determination that the adjustment was warranted. Denaro’s second argument fares no better. The PSR provided a detailed description of the roles that each of the named participants played in the conspiracy and Visco’s testimony at the sentencing hearing served as further corroboration. The record thus contains ample evidence to justify the court’s conclusion that the four individuals named in the PSR were all active participants in the conspiracy. Since Denaro does not challenge the court’s conclusion that he was a manager or supervisor of the conspiracy, the court’s three-level role in the offense adjustment was proper.