Opinion ID: 533773
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Two-Point Enhancement for Williams' Role in the Offense

Text: 13 The district court made an upward adjustment in Williams' sentence of two offense levels pursuant to Guidelines § 3B1.1(c). That section states: 14 Based on the defendant's role in the offense, increase the offense level as follows: 15 (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. 16 Guidelines § 3B1.1(c) (emphasis added). Williams challenged this adjustment on two grounds. First, he argued that the sentencing court should not have considered his post-arrest statement because it related to the drug count which the government had dismissed. Second, he contended that the district court could not rely on the statement without conducting an evidentiary hearing to determine its reliability. In general, the Guidelines permit a sentencing court to consider reliable information beyond that relating to the offense of conviction, including the type of information to which appellant objects. Indeed, Guidelines § 1B1.3 requires courts to take account of relevant conduct where appropriate in the Guidelines scheme. A court would be well within its authority, for example, to rely on such information in determining the sentence to impose within the applicable Guidelines range, see Guidelines § 1B1.4, or in determining the appropriate base offense level within a Guideline which provides for multiple offense levels. See Guidelines § 2D1.1; see also United States v. Wright, 873 F.2d 437 (1st Cir.1989); United States v. Fernandez, 877 F.2d 1138, 1141-42 (2d Cir.1989). Because the primary question in this case is whether the district court should have applied Guidelines § 3B1.1(c) in the first instance, however, we need not address appellant's arguments concerning the relevance and reliability of the relevant conduct information available to the district court. 3 The [282 U.S.App.D.C. 55] critical flaw in the district court's application of § 3B1.1(c) is not that it was improper to rely on certain information in finding that Williams was a manager of a crack house, but that it was inappropriate to apply § 3B1.1(c) in a case where the defendant was convicted of an offense that did not involve more than one participant. 4 17 Williams pled guilty to possession of a sawed-off shotgun. Nevertheless, the probation department added two points to his offense level for his role in a drug trafficking operation, i.e., being a manager of a crack house, even though the offense for which Williams was convicted did not involve drug trafficking. We believe Guidelines § 3B1.1(c) requires the judge to look at the defendant's role in the offense of conviction, not his role in any relevant aggravating conduct in which he may have engaged. 18 Under Part B of Chapter 3 of the Guidelines, a sentencing court may adjust the offense level to reflect accurately the defendant's culpability in the crime, that is, his role in the offense. Guidelines § 3B1.1 allows the sentencing court to increase the offense level if the defendant was an organizer, leader, manager, or supervisor, see Guidelines § 3B1.1(a), (b), or (c), and § 3B1.2 allows the court to decrease the offense level if the defendant was a minimal or minor participant. 5 See Guidelines § 3B1.2(a) or (b). The introductory commentary to these sections states that [w]hen an offense is committed by more than one participant, § 3B1.1 or § 3B1.2 (or neither) may apply. Unless the defendant abused a position of trust or used a special skill in committing the offense, see Guidelines § 3B1.3, the Guidelines do not otherwise provide for role in the offense adjustments. See Guidelines § 3B1.4 (In any other case, no adjustment is made for role in the offense.). In delimiting the role in the offense adjustment in this fashion, the Sentencing Commission explicitly recognized that many offenses are committed by a single individual or by individuals of roughly equal culpability, and that none of them receive an adjustment under this Part. Guidelines § 3B1.4 commentary. 19 Additionally, the phrase the offense, as it appears in context, [b]ased on the defendant's role in the offense, plainly refers to the offense for which the defendant was convicted. See Guidelines § 3B1.1 (emphasis added). See also United States v. Nuno-Para, 877 F.2d 1409, 1413 (9th Cir.1989) (guidelines provide for a number of upward adjustments from the base level, including the defendant's role in the offense of which he was convicted ) (emphasis added). Throughout the statutory scheme, the Guidelines distinguish between relevant conduct on the one hand, and the offense of conviction on the other. Under Guidelines § 1B1.3, for example, the sentencing judge shall take relevant conduct into account in determining which of several overlapping base offense levels applies, in determining specific offense characteristics, and in making chapter three adjustments. Relevant conduct is defined as all acts and omissions committed or aided and abetted by the defendant, or for which the defendant would be otherwise accountable, that occurred during the commission of the offense of conviction, in preparation for that offense, or ... that otherwise were in furtherance of that offense. Guidelines § 1B1.3(a). As a rule of construction, however, this provision is [282 U.S.App.D.C. 56] to be applied only in the absence of more explicit instructions in the context of a specific guideline. Guidelines § 1B1.3 Background. The Commission has provided more explicit guidance in § 3B1.1 et seq. by focusing on the defendant's role in the offense, and not on his role in all relevant conduct surrounding that offense. 20 In a case in which the offense involves more than one participant, we will give due deference to the district court's decision to adjust the offense level upward or downward under §§ 3B1.1 or 3B1.2. See 18 U.S.C. § 3742(e). As other circuits have recognized, the district court is in the best position to assess the defendant's relative culpability vis-a-vis other participants in the offense. See, e.g., United States v. Haynes, 881 F.2d 586, 588 (8th Cir.1989) (conspiracy to distribute cocaine; organizer in drug distribution scheme); United States v. Diaz-Villafane, 874 F.2d 43, 49 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 110 S.Ct. 177, 107 L.Ed.2d 133 (1989) (possession with intent to distribute heroin; manager); United States v. Mejia-Orosco, 867 F.2d 216 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 109 S.Ct. 3257, 106 L.Ed.2d 602 (1989) (manager of illegal transportation of aliens into the United States); United States v. Velasquez-Mercado, 872 F.2d 632 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 110 S.Ct. 187, 107 L.Ed.2d 142 (1989); cf. United States v. Wright, 873 F.2d 437, 442-43 (1st Cir.1989) (court rejected defendant's request for downward adjustment under Guidelines § 3B1.2, concluding that defendant was not a minimal participant insofar as it was the defendant himself who possessed the cocaine and no other participant was needed to complete the offense). 21 Nonetheless, a § 3B1.1 adjustment can only be considered when the defendant has a role in the offense for which relative responsibility can be allocated. See Guidelines § 3B1.1 Background; see also United States v. Daughtrey, 874 F.2d 213, 216 (4th Cir.1989). The offense of conviction itself must involve more than one participant. In this case, because the offense of conviction, possession of a sawed-off shotgun, did not involve more than one participant, the district court had no cause to allocate relative responsibility and, therefore, improperly assessed the two-level increase. See United States v. Foster, 876 F.2d 377 (5th Cir.1989) (court remanded a district court sentence because the sentencing judge, pursuant to Guidelines § 3B1.3, had increased the defendant's offense level by two points for conduct not relevant to the offense of conviction) (emphasis added).