Opinion ID: 187162
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Brodie's Enhanced Sentence

Text: Amicus claims that the district court improperly applied a four-level sentencing enhancement pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1. Section 3B1.1 of the Guidelines provides that the defendant's offense level should be increased by four levels [i]f the defendant was an organizer or leader of a criminal activity that involved five or more participants or was otherwise extensive. U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(a). Amicus argues that there was no evidence that Brodie was an organizer or leader or that there were at least five participants in the scheme. We review the district court's factual findings supporting a section 3B1.1 enhancement under the clearly erroneous standard of review. [7] See United States v. Shah, 453 F.3d 520, 524 (D.C.Cir.2006); United State v. Yeh, 278 F.3d 9, 14 (D.C.Cir.2002).
Amicus claims that Brodie did not exercise control over any of the other participants in the scheme and therefore Brodie was not an organizer or leader of a criminal activity. Amicus notes that all of the other participants had been involved in similar fraudulent conduct before their participation in Brodie's scheme and it is far more likely that Padonu and/or Kareem supervised defendant and told him how to complete the process, as one of them was the loan officer on all nine of the properties with which defendant was involved. Amicus Br. 39. Amicus contends that Brodie's involvement is similar to that of the defendant in United States v. Quigley, 373 F.3d 133 (D.C.Cir.2004), where the court held that a real estate agent involved in a flipping scheme was not an organizer or leader. While plainly control is one factor in determining whether someone qualifies as an organizer or leader, the Guidelines include several other factors, including 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 [and] the degree of participation in planning or organizing the offense. U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1, cmt. n. 4. The record contains evidence supporting each of these factors. First, Brodie recruited individuals with specialized skills to facilitate his scheme: Akinmurele prepared false financial documents, Harper appraised the properties and Padonu or Kareem submitted the false loan applications. Second, Brodie coordinated the group's efforts and directed them in the performance of their respective tasks. For example, Brodie met with Harper and directed her to appraise the properties at specific inflated prices. Similarly, Brodie directed Akinmurele to prepare false documents to conform with information Brodie had already submitted to the lender. Brodie also directed Padonu and Kareem to file the false loan applications. Finally, Brodie paid the other participants flat fees for their servicesseveral hundred dollars eachand kept the fruits of the crime (the loan proceeds) for himself. Accordingly, the record supports the finding that Brodie was an organizer or leader of the criminal activity. See United States v. Wilson, 240 F.3d 39, 46-47 (D.C.Cir.2001) (affirming imposition of enhancement because [t]he exercise of decision making authority, recruitment, and a claimed right to a larger share of the proceeds are prominent among the factors that the commentary to the Guidelines indicates should be considered); United States v. Kelley, 36 F.3d 1118, 1129 (D.C.Cir.1994) (defendant exercised control over others as organizer or leader by instructing other participants to take specific actions). The holding in Quigley does not compel a different result. Quigley was a real estate agent who pleaded guilty to conspiracy to defraud the United States for her role in a house-flipping scheme. 373 F.3d at 134-35. She aided the scheme by helping her co-conspirators find appraisers to inflate the property values and by helping buyers obtain false income records so that they qualified for federally insured mortgages. Id. at 134. The court held that a four-level organizer or leader enhancement was not warranted because [e]ntirely lacking on the record before us is any evidence that Quigley had any sort of hierarchically superior relationship with the persons who were purportedly her subordinates. Id. at 140. While Quigley assisted others to engage in a fraud, Brodie recruited and organized his coconspirators so that he could purchase the properties and retain the fruits of the fraud. Brodie occupied the top position in the conspiracy hierarchy, directing and supervising the efforts of an appraiser, two loan officers and an accountant. Quigley was simply a facilitator but Brodie designed and led the conspiracy. Accordingly, the district court did not err in finding that Brodie was an organizer or leader.
While Amicus does not contest that Padonu, Kareem and Harper were participants in the fraudulent scheme, Amicus does assert that Akinmurele cannot be characterized as a criminally responsible participant because there is no indication that he had any knowledge of the `flipping' scheme. Amicus Br. 40. Accordingly, Amicus contends that the record does not support the finding that Brodie was the leader of a scheme involving five participants. The comment to section 3B1.1 defines a participant as a person who is criminally responsible for the commission of the offense, but need not have been convicted. U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1 cmt. n. 1. A person is `criminally responsible' under § 3B1.1 only if `he commit[s] all of the elements of a statutory crime with the requisite mens rea.' United States v. McCoy, 242 F.3d 399, 410 (D.C.Cir.2001) (quoting United States v. Bapack, 129 F.3d 1320, 1325 (D.C.Cir.1997) (internal quotations omitted)) (emphasis added and alteration in McCoy ). The person need not be found criminally responsible as a principal or culpable in the same crime of which the supervising defendant was convicted: `[J]ust as a party who knowingly assists a criminal enterprise is criminally responsible under principles of accessory liability, a party who gives knowing aid in some part of the criminal enterprise is a criminally responsible party under the Guidelines.' Bapack, 129 F.3d at 1325 (quoting United States v. Hall, 101 F.3d 1174, 1178 (7th Cir.1996)) (alteration in Bapack ). Based on the record, the district court's finding that Akinmurele was a criminally responsible person was not clearly erroneous. Akinmurele admitted to the FBI that he prepared false financial statements for Brodie at Brodie's direction and bank records corroborate Akinmurele by indicating that Brodie paid Akinmurele for his services. Therefore, the imposition of the four-level enhancement pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1 was not clearly erroneous.