Opinion ID: 2785371
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Begley’s Sentence Enhancement

Text: Begley contests the district court’s application of a 4-level enhancement to his sentence for conspiracy to distribute 500 grams or more of methamphetamine, arguing that he should only be subject to a 3-level enhancement pursuant to USSG § 3B1.1(b) and thus his sentence was procedurally unreasonable. We find his argument to be without merit. A sentence would be procedurally unreasonable if the court “select[ed] a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts.” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The 4-level enhancement was applied based upon the court’s finding that Begley was an “organizer or leader of a criminal activity that involved five or more participants or was otherwise extensive.” USSG § 3B1.1(a). A court’s factual findings regarding the application of an enhancement under § 3B1.1 are reviewed for clear error, and its legal conclusions regarding that enhancement are also subject to deferential review. United States v. Washington, 715 F.3d 975, 982-83 (6th Cir. 2013). “The prosecution bears the burden of proving leadership by a preponderance of the evidence.” United States v. Wright, 747 F.3d 399, 412 (6th Cir. 2014). To qualify for such an enhancement, the defendant must have been the organizer or leader of “one or more other participants.” USSG § 3B1.1, cmt. n.2. Under the Sentencing Guidelines, factors to consider when determining if a defendant is such a leader 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 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.” Id. at cmt. n.4; United States v. Sierra-Villegas, __F.3d__, No. 13-2513, 2014 WL 7271420, at  (6th Cir. -4- Nos. 13-6431/6454/6478/14-5685, United States v. Begley, et al. Dec. 23, 2014). When considering if an organization is “otherwise extensive,” “all persons involved during the course of the entire offense are to be considered.” USSG § 3B1.1, cmt. n.3. At Begley’s sentencing hearing, the government relied in part on the testimony of Carson, Begley’s former girlfriend and one of his co-defendants. Carson testified that she made several trips to Georgia and Manchester, Kentucky with Begley for the purpose of buying methamphetamine, and that he then sold a quantity of the drugs to Eversole, keeping half for himself. She stated that Begley bought between two and four ounces at a time, for which he paid at least a thousand dollars an ounce, at times going down to Georgia twice a week. Carson also confirmed that Begley was in charge of arranging these trips, paying for the drugs, distributing the drugs to others in the region, and taking the proceeds from his sales to buy more drugs. Occasionally Carson would go by herself to pick up the drugs, after Begley had made the arrangements and given her the money. Carson also admitted that Begley once had Carson pick up money and deliver it to Collier. At other times, additional individuals traveled with Carson and Begley to Georgia, driving or otherwise helping with the trip in return for payment in the form of methamphetamine. Although Begley made multiple objections to his presentence report protesting the amount of drugs attributable to him as well as the 4-level enhancement for his leadership role, after Carson’s testimony at the sentencing hearing, Begley’s counsel conceded that at least five persons were involved in the drug conspiracy: “Yes, there were participants. Yes, there were five.” R. 275, Page ID 1149. Moments earlier he had admitted that “I can candidly tell you the best I can get it down to is five”—even as he attempted to argue that Begley was “more of a free agent” and a “supplier of the conspiracy” rather than an organizer. R. 275, Page ID 1148-49. Begley also took the stand, claiming that he only ever sold drugs to Eversole, although he -5- Nos. 13-6431/6454/6478/14-5685, United States v. Begley, et al. admitted that he knew she then sold to others. Begley also argues here that he did not organize his co-conspirators, but concedes that he directed the activities of Carson and Collier. Based on the information in the presentence report and Carson’s testimony—both of which the court credited—the court found that a preponderance of the evidence showed that Begley was an organizer or leader of a criminal activity and thus subject to the 4-level enhancement. It found that Begley clearly exercised control over at least one person, retained a large share of the proceeds when he kept half of the drugs for himself, made all of the arrangements for purchasing the drugs in Georgia and Kentucky, and then bought the drugs. See USSG § 3B1.1, cmt. n.4. As the court stressed, Begley “only ha[d] to manage or supervise one other person” in a criminal activity involving five or more participants to be eligible for the enhancement under the Guidelines. See § 3B1.1, cmt. n.2. Given the evidence before the court and the record before us, we determine that there was no error in the court’s findings or its application of the enhancement. Begley’s sentence was procedurally reasonable.