Opinion ID: 25054
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Sentence Enhancement for Leader/Organizer

Text: Determination whether a defendant is a U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1 leader or organizer is a factual one.15 Therefore, we cannot disturb the district court’s findings regarding Barnett’s role as “an organizer or leader of a criminal activity that involved five or more participants or was otherwise extensive,” unless we conclude that those findings are clearly erroneous.16
Unlike some of our fellow circuits, we treat § 3B1.1 analysis disjunctively. When determining whether a criminal organization is “otherwise extensive,” we consider the totality of the evidence.17 Here, we must determine whether, in light of the record as a whole, it is plausible that Barnett was more than a mere buyer and seller, but did in fact exert authority and control over others. For assessing a defendant’s role as a leader/organizer, the Sentencing Guidelines direct a court to consider (1) the exercise of decision making authority, (2) the nature of participation in the commission 15 United States v. Valencia, 44 F.3d 269, 272 (5th Cir. 1995). 16 Id. at 347. 17 See United States v. Wilson, 240 F.3d 39, 47 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (recognizing that circuits are currently split on the factors relevant to an activity being “otherwise extensive” and noting that this circuit has chosen to look to a broad range of factors beyond the number of persons involved to determine “otherwise extensive” activity). 11 of the offense, (3) the claimed right to a larger share of the fruits of the crime, (4) the degree of participation in planning or organizing the offense, (5) the nature and scope of the illegal activity, and (6) the degree of control and authority exercised over others.18 Testimony at Barnett’s trial revealed three facts relevant to these criteria. First, at one time or another, five persons named in the indictment worked for Barnett at B & W.19 Four of those subordinates pleaded guilty to various violations of the Controlled Substance Act and are awaiting sentencing. Second, the ledgers and drug equipment recovered suggest that Barnett was purchasing and selling distribution quantities of meth, not merely personal use quantities. Finally, as confirmed by Agent Navarro’s testimony, ledgers like the ones kept by Barnett, which contain monetary figures and drug quantities, are generally used only when the keeper of the ledger is “fronting” money and drugs to others who subsequently sell the drugs. Based on these facts, Agent Navarro was of the opinion, and so testified, that Barnett was involved in all aspects of the drug distribution scheme, including acquisition, packaging, redistribution, and collection of monies. Admittedly, no direct evidence precisely establishes that Barnett directed and 18 U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1 n. 4. 19 Agent Navarro testified that Michael Pallone, Danny Sturgill, Carlos Sanchez, Randy Dupre, and Tracie Barnett were at one time or another employees of B & W. 12 controlled other participants.20 Still, a strong inference to that effect flows from the master-servant relationship at B & W. On the other hand, even though some record evidence suggests that Barnett profited from these crimes, none suggests that he ever asserted a right to a larger share of the profits than anyone else. Given these countervailing facts and inferences, and the other enhancement options available to the district court, Barnett’s role as a leader/organizer presents a close question.21 The district court did not articulate the factual basis for its leadership determination. We noted in United States v. Valencia, however, that the district court’s statement that a defendant is a manager or leader is itself a finding of fact, and proceeded to affirm the district court’s § 3B1.1 finding in the absence of a specifically articulated factual basis.22 Relying on our rulings in United 20 See United States v. Ronning, 47 F.3d 710, 712 (5th Cir. 1995) (“Consequently, a leader or organizer must control or influence other people.... Management responsibility does not make a leader or organizer.”). 21 U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1 provides, in relevant part: Based on the defendant’s role in the offense, increase the offense level as follows: (a) If the defendant was an organizer or leader of a criminal activity that involved five or more participants or was otherwise extensive, increase by 4 levels. (b) If the defendant was a manager or supervisor (but not an organizer or leader) and the criminal activity involved five or more participants or was otherwise extensive, increase by 3 levels. (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. 22 See United States v. Valencia, 44 F.3d 269, 273 (5th Cir. 1995) (quoting United States v. Mejia-Orosco, 867 F2d 216, 221 (5th 13 States v. Mejia-Orosco and Valencia and assessing the plausibility of the district court’s finding in light of the admittedly ambivalent record — plus armed with the knowledge that the sentencing judge presided over the trial and had the advantage of hearing the testimony first-hand, noting all inflections and observing facial expressions and body language — we have sufficient confidence in the district court’s finding to conclude that it did not clearly err in branding Barnett a leader or organizer.