Opinion ID: 670738
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Organizer or Leader Role

Text: 12 Guideline Sec. 3B1.1(a) provides that a defendant's offense level should be increased by four levels based on his role in the offense [i]f the defendant was an organizer or leader of a criminal activity that involved five or more participants or was otherwise extensive. The trial court stated at Parker's sentencing hearing that it found him to be an organizer and leader within the meaning of Guideline Sec. 3B1.1(a) because he 13 [d]id meet with the co-defendants in advance of the robberies. He outlined plans for the Builders Square and ValuMart robberies. He provided the weapons used in the robberies. He was familiar with the layouts of Builders Square and the ValuMart establishments, and the courier procedures and the security at the Builders Square; and he conveyed all of the information to his co-defendants. Also, the number of people that were involved in the conspiracy, which encompasses all of the robberies involved in this case, totaled six participants.The defendant carries a heavy burden in seeking to overturn the district court's finding on this issue, for we have held that the trial judge's determination of whether a defendant was an organizer or leader under Guideline Sec. 3B1.1(a) is a fact question for the sentencing court to resolve, and we will not disturb it absent a showing of clear error. United States v. McKenzie, 922 F.2d 1323-1329 (7th Cir.1991) (citations omitted). This standard of review makes clear that we may not hold that the trial judge erred unless we are of the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed. United States v. Brown, 900 F.2d 1098, 1102 (7th Cir.1990) (quoting Anderson v. Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564, 573, 105 S.Ct. 1504, 1511, 84 L.Ed.2d 518 (1985)). Moreover, where there are two permissible views of the evidence, the factfinder's choice between them cannot be clearly erroneous. Id. at 1102. 14 According to Application Note 3 to Guideline Sec. 3B1.1(a), among the factors the court should consider in determining a defendant's role in an offense are: 15 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 of the offense, the nature and scope of the illegal activity and the degree of control and authority exercised over others. 16 U.S.S.G. Sec. 3B1.1, comment. (n. 3). 17 In an attempt to demonstrate that the trial court committed clear error in determining that he was an organizer or leader, defendant Parker initially argues that the conspirators' plans and decisions were made as a group rather than by Parker alone. Our review of the transcript reveals that this assertion is somewhat misleading because co-defendant Leo Reese (Reese) testified at Officer Parker's sentencing that the robbers made a lot of their decisions as a group but also that the initial idea was Mr. Parker's. He provided the site, the information, and the weapons with which to carry this out. Reese further testified that Parker had proposed other robberies in addition to the four that he participated in, that Parker drove him to view these potential targets, and that without Parker the first robbery never would have happened. 18 In further support of his argument that he should not be sentenced as a leader or organizer, Parker claims that he only participated in two of the four dry runs in which the defendants practiced their first robbery. But we fail to understand how the defendant's admission that he did attend and participate in at least two practice robberies supports his argument, for it is undisputed that Officer Parker and his co-conspirators always agreed that Parker would remain away from the actual robbery scene while his co-defendants did the dirty work. This arrangement also accounts for the defendant's third contention: that he received a smaller share of the robbery proceeds than did his co-conspirators and that therefore he should not be deemed a leader or organizer. We observe that Reese testified at the defendant's sentencing hearing that the reason Parker's co-conspirators set aside a smaller share of the take from each robbery for Officer Parker than they awarded themselves was that Parker did not physically accompany them during the robberies and so did not share the same risks. Parker next claims that his co-conspirators also provided their own firearms for use in the robberies and that this too demonstrates that he was not a leader or organizer. We do not think this alleged circumstance has any bearing on whether or not Parker was a leader or organizer. But even if it did, we note that Parker's testimony was that he only found out later that his confederates had extra weapons in addition to the ones with which he provided them, which strongly suggests that both he and the other conspirators viewed his role as a weapons provider (and instructor) as crucial to the success of the conspiracy. 19 Parker's final argument that he was not a leader or organizer is that he did not personally recruit the additional members of the conspiracy, but instead left that task to Rogers. (Parker testified that the reason Rogers did the recruiting was that I didn't know people.) While we might agree that this evidence suggests that Rogers also played an important role in the conspiracy, the issue of Rogers' role in the conspiracy is not before us. We agree with the trial court's determination that, regardless of what role Rogers may have played, Parker played a key role in planning and organizing the robberies, and was therefore properly sentenced as a leader/organizer. See United States v. Boula, 997 F.2d 263, 265 (7th Cir.1993) (holding that there may be more than one organizer or leader of a conspiracy). 20 In sum, the record demonstrates (1) that Parker first proposed the robbery spree, (2) that because he didn't know people, he agreed to allow Rogers to recruit the additional members of the conspiracy, (3) that he provided the group with weapons, information, a police scanner and transportation without which the conspiracy would not have been carried out, and (4) that he received money from each hold-up while remaining removed from the scenes of the crimes. Because we agree with the trial court that Parker was a leader or organizer of the conspiracy, we hold that the court did not err in enhancing the defendant's sentence pursuant to Guideline Sec. 3B1.1(a).