Opinion ID: 2994533
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Organizer Enhancement, sec. 3B1.1(c)

Text: Also looking at the bank fraud count, the court decided that Haehle had been an organizer or leader, and thus that two levels had to be added on under sec. 3B1.1(c). Haehle complains about this as well. The government, however, argues that he forfeited this objection during the sentencing proceedings, and that the applicable standard of review is therefore plain error under Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(b). We agree that Haehle at least forfeited his argument--waiver is also conceivable, but as the government does not argue this, we do not consider it. During sentencing, Haehle’s lawyer made the following statement to the court: I said certain things to Mr. Haehle that he’s agreed with that I can proffer to the Court at this time. Clearly under the law he had a role in the offense and he acknowledges that. That’s going to increase the level. That the law indicates that someone who has done the kind of things that Mr. Haehle has admitted to doing will most assuredly run the risk of having additional points added to the base offense level. And he recognizes that. Sent. Tr. at 42-43. Haehle tries to avoid the force of this statement by suggesting that he waived only an objection to the increase under sec. 2F1.1(b)(2)(A) for more than minimal planning, but the record does not support that view. Instead, it reveals that just after the statement excerpted above, Haehle’s lawyer also discussed the minimal planning adjustment. Id. at