Opinion ID: 59438
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Aggravating-Role Enhancement

Text: We review a district court’s determination of a defendant’s role in an offense for clear error. United States v. Jiminez, 224 F.3d 1243, 1250-51 (11th Cir. 2000). “[T]he ultimate determination of role in the offense is also a fundamentally factual determination entitled to due deference.” United States v. Rodriguez De Varon, 175 F.3d 930, 938 (11th Cir. 1999) (en banc). “The government bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant had an aggravating role in the offense.” United States v. Yeager, 331 F.3d 1216, 1226 (11th Cir. 2003). “The findings of fact of the sentencing court may be based on 2 evidence heard during trial, facts admitted by a defendant’s plea of guilty, undisputed statements in the presentence report, or evidence presented at the sentencing hearing.” United States v. Wilson, 884 F.2d 1355, 1356 (11th Cir. 1989). Section 3B1.1(c) of the Sentencing Guidelines provides, “If the defendant was an organizer, leader, manager, or supervisor in any criminal activity [that involved fewer than 5 participants and was not otherwise extensive], increase by 2 levels.” The commentary elaborates, “To qualify for an adjustment under this section, the defendant must have been the organizer, leader, manager, or supervisor of one or more other participants.” U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1, comment. (n.2). A “participant” is “a person who is criminally responsible for the commission of the offense, but need not have been convicted.” U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1, comment. (n.1). An undercover law enforcement officer is not a participant. U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1, comment. (n.1). “‘[P]articipation’ under the aggravating and mitigating role guidelines implies criminal liability and intent, that the individual be an actual member of the plan or conspiracy.” United States v. Costales, 5 F.3d 480, 484 (11th Cir. 1993). We have held that “a mere buyer/seller relationship is inadequate to link individuals to a conspiracy.” United States v. Revel, 971 F.2d 656, 660 (11th Cir. 1992). 3 In order to warrant an enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(c), a defendant must have “control over another participant in the criminal activity.” United States v. Harness, 180 F.3d 1232, 1235 (11th Cir. 1999). The “assertion of control or influence over only one individual is enough to support a § 3B1.1(c) enhancement.” Jiminez, 224 F.3d at 1251. A district court errs if there is no evidence or findings of fact that would support the conclusion that a defendant organized, led, managed, or supervised one or more participants who engaged in the criminal activities. See Harness, 180 F.3d at 1235. Here, we conclude from the record that the district court clearly erred by finding that Lopez warranted an aggravating-role enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(c) because there is no evidence to support the finding that Lopez controlled another participant in the criminal offense.