Opinion ID: 179055
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Organizer in Scheme Involving Five or More Participants

Text: Knox's next argument concerns the district court's application of U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(a), which directs the sentencing judge to increase a defendant's base offense level by four levels if the defendant was an organizer or leader of a criminal activity that involved five or more participants or was otherwise extensive. Factors to be considered when determining whether the adjustment is warranted 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. Id. § 3B1.1(a) cmt. n. 4. Knox contends that the four-level adjustment was improper because the scheme only involved four participants since only four people were found criminally responsible: Knox, Ciota, Wiese, and Schneider. This, however, misreads the guidelines provision, which defines a participant as a person who is criminally responsible for the commission of the offense, but need not have been convicted.  Id. § 3B1.1(a) cmt. n. 1 (emphasis added). As such, a person need not be convicted of a crime to be criminally responsible, and the district court properly looked beyond the three individuals who were convicted (Knox, Ciota, and Wiese, all of whom pleaded guilty) and a fourth individual who was facing charges for his role in the scheme (Schneider) to determine the number of participants. Those four were obvious participants, and the district court accepted the government's argument that the fifth participant in the scheme was Miller, who although never criminally charged, admitted that she knowingly participated in the scheme by advancing funds on loans that had not closed at the direction of Schneider, who introduced Miller to Knox. Even absent a finding that Miller was criminally responsible for purposes of § 3B1.1(a), her involvement would still indicate that the scheme was otherwise extensive since Knox made use of her services. [7] Accordingly, the district court did not err by determining that the scheme involved five or more participants. We also reject Knox's assertion that he did not have a leadership role because each participant played an individual role and he did not exert control over any of them. We have previously acknowledged that being an organizer or leader does not necessarily mean that [the defendant] directly controlled other individuals. Rather, the defendant must have exercised some degree of control over others involved in the commission of the offense or he must have been responsible for organizing others for the purpose of carrying out the crime. United States v. Wasz, 450 F.3d 720, 729 (7th Cir.2006). As the district court found, Knox was an organizer because he was the straw that stirs the drink here, as shown by his role as the mastermind of the scheme, his recruitment of Wiese and Ciota, his receipt of the lion's share of the scheme's proceeds, and his exercise of decision-making authority and control over others (e.g., his suggestions that Wiese appraise the properties in line with Knox's target price). The district court's calculation of the number of participants in the scheme and its determination that Knox was an organizer were both proper.