Opinion ID: 170966
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Leadership Roles in the Offenses

Text: USSG § 3B1.1 states: Based on the defendant's role in the offense, increase the offense level as follows: (a) If the defendant was an organizer or leader of a criminal activity that involved five or more participants or was otherwise extensive, increase by 4 levels. (b) If the defendant was a manager or supervisor (but not an organizer or leader) and the criminal activity involved five or more participants or was otherwise extensive, increase by 3 levels. (c) If the defendant was an organizer, leader, manager, or supervisor in any criminal activity other than described in (a) or (b), increase by 2 levels. The commentary to § 3B1.1 provides the following guidance for determining which enhancement is appropriate: In distinguishing a leadership and organizational role from one of mere management or supervision, titles such as kingpin or boss are not controlling. 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 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. There can, of course, be more than one person who qualifies as a leader or organizer of a criminal association or conspiracy. This adjustment does not apply to a defendant who merely suggests committing the offense. Id., cmt. n. 4. The Defendants challenge the four-level enhancement for their roles in the murder conspiracy and Mr. Ivory challenges the two-level enhancement on the drug counts. There is no dispute that the murder conspiracy involved at least five participants. But Mr. Ivory contends that [t]he evidence ... did not establish that [he] gave directions to anyone regarding any plot to kill Tania Atkins and that his conversations with Ms. Tyler did not constitute being an organizer or leader. Ivory Br. at 42. We disagree. The district court could properly determine that Mr. Ivory was a leader based on his phone calls with Ms. Tyler, in which, it could be inferred, he pressured her to carry out the plan to kill Atkins and discussed with her both who could be chosen to perform the murder and the best time of day for the crime. After all, he was the one who would benefit most from the murder. As for Ms. Tyler, she claims that she was merely a manager of the murder conspiracy and that she therefore should have received only a three-level enhancement for her role. But the court reasonably found that she was the pivot point of the conspiracy. R. Vol. VII, Doc. 502 at 15:10. Turning to the drug charge against Mr. Ivory, it involved fewer than five participants, so § 3B1.1(c) applied. Under that provision the defendant needs merely to give some form of direction or supervision to someone subordinate in the criminal activity for which the sentence is given. United States v. Backas, 901 F.2d 1528, 1530 (10th Cir.1990) (defendant was a supervisor under USSG § 3B1.1(c) because he supervised another person, a doorman, in a drug-distribution scheme). The district court based this enhancement on Cheek's testimony that she called Mr. Ivory to purchase drugs and Mr. Ivory sent a person to deliver drugs to her at a convenience store. Although Mr. Ivory contends that [t]here was no evidence as to what the respective roles were between [Mr. Ivory] and [the delivery person], Ivory Br. at 40, the court could reasonably believe Cheek's testimony and find that Mr. Ivory had directed a subordinate to make the delivery.