Opinion ID: 866908
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Ample Evidence Supported the District Court’s

Text: Finding that Reynolds Was a Leader or Organizer On appeal Reynolds first challenges the district court’s finding that he was an “organizer or leader of a criminal activity that involved five or more participants.” No. 12-1206 7 U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(a). He contends that he was not an “organizer or leader” because there is no evidence that (1) his relative responsibility for the crimes was any greater than the other seven participants, (2) he exercised control over any assailant, or (3) he coordinated the other participants toward a common objective. When determining whether a defendant’s role in a crime reaches the level of a leader or organizer, a district court must consider, among other factors, the nature of the defendant’s participation in the offense, his claimed right to a larger share of the fruits of the crime, his degree of participation in planning or organizing the offense, and his degree of control and authority exercised over other participants. See U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1 cmt. n.4; United States v. Knox, 624 F.3d 865, 874 (7th Cir. 2010). The defendant must have organized or led at least one participant, U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1 cmt. n.2; United States v. Vasquez, 673 F.3d 680, 685 (7th Cir. 2012), but the “central concern” of the adjustment is the defendant’s relative responsibility for the crime, United States v. Mendoza, 576 F.3d 711, 717 (7th Cir. 2009). Here, the trial testimony amply supported a finding that Reynolds was the leader of the group. Gentle testified that Reynolds not only discovered the location of Russell’s home but also determined the timing of the crime (as well as the timing of the unsuccessful attempt the previous night), the group’s plan once Russell told them of his supposed marijuana stash in Chicago, and each participant’s cut of the share. Russell in turn fingered Reynolds as the primary man who beat and 8 No. 12-1206 interrogated him, and Thompson testified that Reynolds believed that Russell and his employer owed him a personal debt. This testimony demonstrated Reynolds’s significant level of planning, involvement in the crime, and degree of control over others. And though the testimony did not establish what portion each participant received from the $15,000 held by Reynolds throughout the crime, it strongly suggested that Reynolds kept a large share for himself because of his belief that the crime was “his move.” Finally, the court’s finding was largely based on its determination that the testimony of Russell, Gentle, and Thompson was credible, and we will almost never disturb a district court’s credibility determinations. See, e.g., United States v. Kamoga, 177 F.3d 617, 622 (7th Cir. 1999). The evidence was simply overwhelming that Reynolds oversaw the scheme and had greater relative responsibility than the other participants.