Opinion ID: 670706
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Double Counting for Leadership and Planning

Text: 5 Godfrey first contends that the district court improperly double counted in adjusting his sentence level upward by four levels for being a leader or organizer under U.S.S.G. Sec. 3B1.1(a) and by two levels for more than minimal planning and for involvement in a scheme to defraud more than one victim under Sec. 2F1.1(b)(2). 6 We have previously noted that the Sentencing Guidelines do not forbid all double counting. 12 Double counting is impermissible only when the particular guidelines in question forbid it. 13 Because neither Sec. 3B1.1 nor Sec. 2F1.1 forbid double-counting with each other, increases under both of those sections are permitted. This is also the conclusion reached by most of the other circuits to address this question. 14 Previous unpublished decisions of this Court agree. 15 7 We consider Godfrey's reliance on the Sixth Circuit's decision in United States v. Romano 16 misplaced. In Romano, the Sixth Circuit reversed a sentence that the district court had enhanced under both sections 3B1.1(a) and 2F1.1(b)(2) of the Sentencing Guidelines. The majority in Romano concluded that by its very nature, being an organizer or leader of more than five persons necessitates more than minimal planning, 17 but the Sentencing Commission did not intend to punish the same conduct cumulatively under more than one provision of the Guidelines. 18 Therefore, the majority concluded, adjustments under both Secs. 3B1.1(a) and 2F1.1(b)(2) were impermissible. 8 Even if we thought the rule of Romano could be squared with the jurisprudence of this Circuit (and we have serious doubts that it can), we find Romano distinguishable from Godfrey's case. Section 2F1.1(b)(2) allows a two-level increase if the defendant (A) engaged in more than minimal planning or (B) engaged in a scheme to defraud more than one victim. Only the first of those two options was at issue in Romano. The district court found, however, that Godfrey's conduct fitted either of the two options under Sec. 2F1.1(b)(2). In such circumstances, even the Sixth Circuit does not follow the Romano rule, but instead permits cumulative increases under Secs. 2F1.1(b)(2) and 3B1.1(a). 19 The enhancement in Godfrey's case plainly was permissible. 9    10 Godfrey's sentence is AFFIRMED.