Opinion ID: 3151612
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Leadership Role Enhancement for Gary Wilson

Text: The sentencing guidelines allow for an enhancement of two levels for an aggravating role in the offense if “the defendant was an organizer, leader, manager, or supervisor” of criminal activity. U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1. Mr. Wilson disputes the district court’s application of this enhancement, noting that he did not organize or lead the fraudulent scheme, nor did he profit from it. “We review challenges to the reasonableness of a sentence for abuse of discretion.” Kamper, 748 F.3d at 739 (citation omitted). “Our first task in evaluating the reasonableness of 11 United States v. Wilson Nos. 14-1159/1160 the district court’s sentence is to ‘ensure that the district court committed no significant procedural error, such as failing to calculate (or improperly calculating) the Guidelines range . . . .’” United States v. Lalonde, 509 F.3d 750, 769 (6th Cir. 2007) (quoting Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007)). “[W]here a district court makes a mistake in calculating a guidelines range for purposes of determining a sentence under section 3553(a), we are required to remand for resentencing ‘unless we are certain that any such error was harmless—i.e. any such error did not affect the district court’s selection of the sentence imposed.’” United States v. Duckro, 466 F.3d 438, 446 (6th Cir. 2006) (quoting United States v. Hazelwood, 398 F.3d 792, 801 (6th Cir. 2005)). “The government bears the burden of proving that [a role] enhancement applies by a preponderance of the evidence.” United States v. Vandeberg, 201 F.3d 805, 811 (6th Cir. 2000) (citing United States v. Martinez, 181 F.3d 794, 797 (6th Cir. 1999)). In reviewing whether a defendant’s role justifies a role enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1, we review factual findings underlying a district court’s decision for clear error and accord deference to the district court’s legal conclusion. See United States v. Washington, 715 F.3d 975, 982-83 (6th Cir. 2013). In describing when a sentencing enhancement under §3B1.1 for a defendant’s role in the offense is appropriate, We have explained that “a defendant must have exerted control over at least one individual within a criminal organization for the enhancement of § 3B1.1 to be warranted.” United States v. Vandeberg, 201 F.3d 805, 811 (6th Cir. 2000) (quoting United States v. Gort–Didonato, 109 F.3d 318, 321 (6th Cir. 1997)). In determining whether a defendant qualifies as a leader, organizer, manager, or supervisor, a district court should consider a number of factors including, but not limited to, “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, the degree of participation in planning or organizing the offense, the nature and scope of the illegal activity, and the degree of control and authority exercised over others.” U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1, cmt. (n.4). See also Moncivais, 492 F.3d at 660. “Merely playing an essential role in 12 United States v. Wilson Nos. 14-1159/1160 the offense is not equivalent to exercising managerial control over other participants and/or the assets of a criminal enterprise.” Vandeberg, 201 F.3d at 811 (citing United States v. Albers, 93 F.3d 1469, 1487 (10th Cir. 1996)). Lalonde, 509 F.3d at 765. Each of the pre-sentence reports prepared in this case state that “Maxine C. Pochmara would have directed Gary L. Wilson and Sue A. Wilson with respect to the fraudulent acts; therefore, a role enhancement does not seem applicable.” Notwithstanding that statement, in calculating the guideline sentencing range each report also applies a two-level enhancement for being “an organizer, leader, manager, or supervisor” of the criminal activity. After the parties submitted sentencing memoranda and the court held an evidentiary hearing, the district court issued an Order Summarizing Advisory Guidelines Conclusions. Despite the apparent internal inconsistency of the reports, the district court stated that the reports “appropriately scored the Wilsons for their role in the offense.” The court did not otherwise refer to “role in the offense” for either Gary or Sue Wilson, nor did it refer to a role-related sentence enhancement for either of them, but concluded by stating that the guidelines range for Gary Wilson was fifty-one to sixty-three months. The guidelines range for Gary Wilson, with the obstruction of justice enhancements but without a role enhancement, would have been forty-one to fifty-one months. At the sentencing hearing, counsel for Gary Wilson questioned the apparent discrepancy. The government interjected that it was due to a leadership role enhancement, and the district court simply agreed with the government without explanation. At sentencing, the district court did not describe the factual basis or reasoning to support applying a leadership enhancement. The court did find that Mr. Wilson’s role was “essential,” and that he had the ability to end the scheme at any point, but that alone is not sufficient to support a leadership enhancement. See Vandeberg, 201 F.3d at 811. One notable (though not dispositive) factor in determining leadership in a criminal enterprise is whether the purported 13 United States v. Wilson Nos. 14-1159/1160 leader claimed a right to a larger share of the fruits of the crime. See, e.g., United States v. Kelly, 204 F.3d 652, 658 (6th Cir. 2000) (finding leadership role where defendant kept 25% of the profits leaving the other seven participants to split the rest); United States v. Taniguchi, 49 F. App’x 506, 520 (6th Cir. 2002) (finding leadership enhancement where defendant “took a larger share of the proceeds than the other members”). Here, the district court acknowledged that during the lengthy fraudulent scheme neither of the Wilsons received any financial benefit but rather were guilty of facilitating a scheme that benefited the Pochmaras. “When a district court fails to articulate the factual basis for an enhancement, it either compels this Court to review the record de novo, or runs the risk that this Court will have to remand the case for insufficient findings and reasoning.” Vandeberg, 201 F.3d at 810 (citation omitted). Here, as in Vandeberg, a remand for further findings is unnecessary because we have searched the record and it clearly fails to support a two-level enhancement for Mr. Wilson based on his role in the offense. See id. at 811.