Opinion ID: 3151619
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Role Enhancements

Text: At the sentencing hearing, the district court applied a role enhancement to both Barroso and Ubieta. Because the application of a leadership enhancement is a factual finding, we review for clear error. See United States v. Barrington, 648 F.3d 1178, 1200 (11th Cir. 2011).
The district court concluded Barroso “was a manager or supervisor (but not an organizer or leader) and the criminal activity involved five or more participants,” which resulted in a three-level increase under USSG § 3B1.1(b). Barroso maintains that because the individuals he recruited were not “criminal participants,” the district court erred by applying the enhancement. Although the evidence presented at trial established that Barroso manipulated straw buyers or simply used the straw buyer’s identity––rendering those straw buyers non-participants in the conspiracy–– the evidence also showed that he managed two or three other participants in the conspiracy. A “defendant need only manage or supervise one other participant for the enhancement to apply.” United States v. Zepeta, 389 F. App’x 907, 909 (11th Cir. 2010) (per curiam). Here, the district court could reasonably conclude that Barroso supervised his wife, his mother-in-law, and an unidentified woman whom he paid to provide a false verification of employment during the Perez transaction. After 41 Case: 13-12018 Date Filed: 11/03/2015 Page: 42 of 50 all, Barroso’s mother-in-law served as a straw buyer on one of the properties, and Barroso’s company, Two B, received a portion of the loan proceeds from that deal. Barroso’s wife also participated by diverting loan proceeds to satisfy the straw buyer’s cash-to-close payment.
The district court concluded that Ubieta was “an organizer or leader of criminal activity,” which resulted in a four-level increase under USSG § 3B1.1(a). Ubieta argues that the district court misapplied the factors courts should consider under USSG § 3B1.1. The 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.” USSG § 3B1.1 cmt. n.4; see also United States v. Martinez, 584 F.3d 1022, 1026 (11th Cir. 2009). The district court did not err when it concluded that Ubieta was a leader or organizer of the enterprise. Ubieta acted as the closing agent on all of the properties identified in the superseding indictment. Moreover, he repeatedly released the lenders’ proceeds prior to receiving the buyer’s cash-to-close payments, and the co-conspirators used those funds to satisfy the straw buyer’s 42 Case: 13-12018 Date Filed: 11/03/2015 Page: 43 of 50 cash-to-close payments. Thus, his participation in the offense was significant and without it, the scope of the fraud would have been narrower. The government established at trial that Ubieta exercised control over codefendant William Hartnett by repeatedly giving him instructions without any explanation, which Hartnett obeyed. Given how integral Ubieta’s involvement was to the conspiracy’s success, Ubieta’s arguments––that he neither recruited accomplices nor claimed a large share of the profits––does not render the application of the leadership enhancement clear error. Moreover, Ubieta’s argument that other codefendants received more money from the fraud and maintained decision-making authority, does not save him from the enhancement. “There can, of course, be more than one person who qualifies as a leader or organizer of a criminal association or conspiracy.” USSG § 3B1.1 cmt. n. 4.