Opinion ID: 724861
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Sentencing Guideline Provisions

Text: 28 Defendant Donald Wall contends that it was improper for the district court to enhance his offense level by four points based upon his leadership role in the gambling venture. 21 He alleges that the underlying offense and the base offense level 22 already accounted for his leadership role, thereby making the enhancement a double counting. 29 Courts generally do not permit double counting under USSG § 3B1.1 when the offense of conviction reflects an inherent control or leadership role, see, e.g., United States v. Stevenson, 6 F.3d 1262, 1269-70 (7th Cir.1993), or when the same conduct is penalized under a separate guideline provision. See, e.g, United States v. Chichy, 1 F.3d 1501, 1505-07 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1019, 114 S.Ct. 620, 126 L.Ed.2d 584 (1993). The difficulty in defendant's position is that § 1955 warrants a conviction of those who may not lead or manage the enterprise. Moreover, the base offense level is not strictly applied to leaders or organizers--one merely had to engage in a gambling business to receive this level. USSG § 2E3.1(a)(1). As a result, the four-point enhancement is not a double counting. 23 30 AFFIRMED. 31