Opinion ID: 654621
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Leadership Role Adjustment

Text: 32 The appellant also received a two level upward adjustment pursuant to Guideline Sec. 3B1.1 for being an organizer, leader, manager, or supervisor. The introductory commentary to Sec. 3B1.1 says that the guideline may apply whenever an offense is committed by more than one participant. However, the Application Notes to the Commentary to Sec. 3B1.1 further states the [a] person who is not criminally responsible for the commission of the offense is not a participant. This is an important point when looking over the cast of characters in this case. The appellant did arrange to have his mail delivered to Sharyl Branch's home, but there is no indication that she was a participant. Likewise, there is no evidence concerning the source of the cocaine that would suggest a leadership adjustment would be appropriate for the appellant's relationship with that source. That leaves only the minor. At the sentencing hearing, the district judge enhanced the appellant's sentence two points because the fact that the jury found [the appellant] guilty on the count involving a minor to me is sufficient to warrant the adjustment of two points. Sentencing Transcript at 40. 33 The two level adjustment for leadership, under these circumstances, is inappropriate for two reasons. First, the crime of conviction already encompasses the concept of leadership. To employ, hire, persuade, or induce a minor to participate in a crime in an effort to avoid detection of that crime naturally places the employer in a control role. But to sentence the appellant based upon both recruiting a minor and for the appellant's leadership role is double counting. His sentence is being enhanced based upon the same elements that resulted in his offense of conviction. Such a result defeats the purpose of adjustments: providing for increased responsibility beyond that reflected in the offense of conviction. The appellant's offense of conviction, however, reflects an inherent control or leadership role. Thus an enhancement pursuant to Sec. 3B1.1 misapplies the guidelines. The closest analogy to this rationale is found in the Commentary to the Obstruction Guideline, Sec. 3C1.1. Application Note 6 says that when a defendant is convicted of an offense, such as perjury, that an obstruction adjustment pursuant to Sec. 3C1.1 should not be applied to that offense unless there is further obstruction that occurs later. The appellant has been subjected to that same treatment. He has been penalized twice for the same conduct. 34 The second reason that the leadership adjustment is improper is that the adjustment requires an offense that has been committed by more than one participant. See Guideline Sec. 3B1.1, Introductory Commentary. A participant is defined in the Application Notes as a person who is criminally responsible for the commission of the offense (emphasis supplied). There is insufficient evidence to suggest that the minor was criminally responsible. Sufficient evidence of the minor's knowledge or intent to commit the offense (distribution of cocaine) is not found in the record. As a result, only one participant remains--the appellant. The leadership adjustment does not apply when there is a single criminally responsible participant. 35 THEREFORE, for the reasons stated herein, the appellant's conviction is AFFIRMED. The upward adjustment for the appellant's leadership role is reversed and the case is REMANDED to the district court for resentencing, consistent with this opinion.