Opinion ID: 606238
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Upward Adjustment

Text: 6 When adjusting a sentence upward, a district court must find by a preponderance of the evidence that the facts support an upward adjustment. United States v. Restrepo, 946 F.2d 654, 661 (9th Cir.1991) (en banc). The district court's factual determinations are reviewed for clear error, but its legal interpretations of the Guidelines are reviewed de novo. United States v. Wilson, 900 F.2d 1350, 1355 (9th Cir.1990). 7 Section 3B1.1(a) instructs the court to increase a defendant's offense level by four points if 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). The introductory commentary to Chapter 3, Part B of the Sentencing Guidelines was amended, effective November 1, 1990, to read: 8 The determination of a defendant's role in the offense is to be made on the basis of all conduct within the scope of § 1B1.3 (Relevant Conduct), i.e. all conduct included under § 1B1.3(a)(1)-(4), and not solely on the basis of elements and acts cited in the count of conviction. 9 Pursuant to this amendment, the definition of the word offense is not restricted to the offense of conviction. Thus for purposes of § 3B1.1(a), a court may consider relevant conduct. 10 The district court held that it may consider the conduct underlying Commito's pre-guideline offenses when deciding whether he warranted an upward adjustment under § 3B1.1(a) notwithstanding that the guideline offense conduct took place prior to the effective date of the amendment to the introduction to § 3B.1. Because the guideline offense was committed prior to the effective date of the amendment, Commito argues that the application of the amendment violates the ex post facto clause. 11 Commito's argument is without merit. We already have determined that this amendment only clarified § 3B1.1(a). United States v. Lillard, 929 F.2d 500, 503 (9th Cir.1991). Amendments that clarify rather than substantively change the guidelines do not present ex post facto issues when they are applied retrospectively to conduct that occurred before the clarification. United States v. Scarano, 975 F.2d 580, 587 (9th Cir.1992). Therefore, the district court could properly consider Commito's pre-guideline offenses as relevant conduct when deciding whether he warranted an adjustment under § 3B1.1(a). 12 Next, Commito contends that the district court erred when it found that he was a leader or organizer of the kickback scheme. The district court did not speak to this issue at great length. Rather, the court incorporated the pre-sentence report into its statement of reasons and then concluded that the report supported a finding by a preponderance of the evidence that Commito was the mastermind behind the kickback scheme. The district court also stated that it would even reach this finding by focusing only on the guideline offense, and ignoring the relevant pre-guideline offense conduct. 13 In order to adjust Commito's sentence under § 3B1.1(a), the district court must make two distinct findings: 1) that, at a minimum, five participants, were involved in Commito's criminal activity; and 2) that Commito was a leader of the criminal scheme. A district court may meet its requirement of evaluating the evidence on the record by incorporating the pre-sentence report into the record. United States v. Avila, 905 F.2d 295, 298 (9th Cir.1990). 14 This circuit has interpreted Note 3 to require that some degree of control or organizational authority over others be found before a defendant may be considered a leader. United States v. Mares-Molino, 913 F.2d 770, 773 (9th Cir.1990) (emphasis supplied). It is not necessary, however, for the court to find that a defendant supervised each of the minimum five participants. The section simply states that an adjustment occurs if a defendant was an 'organizer or leader of a criminal activity that involved five or more participants....'  United States v. Smith, 924 F.2d 889, 896 (9th Cir.1991) (emphasis in original). 15 The pre-sentence report does not support an upward adjustment under § 3B.1(a) based on the guideline offense alone. In its statement of reasons, the district court focused on Commito's leadership role in the kickback scheme. The pre-sentence report, however, does not support a finding that Commito had organizational authority over the mail fraud. Rather, the pre-sentence report indicates that it was Carl Mattison who initiated, organized, and directed others in the plan to place an Employees Assistance program with National Semi-Conductor, Inc. The district court may have considered other evidence that establishes that Commito was the organizer of the mail fraud plan, but that evidence was not discussed. Thus we must rely, as did the district court, on the statement of facts contained in the pre-sentence report. 16 In addition, the court did not consider whether five participants were involved in the mail fraud scheme. The pre-sentence report reveals that only two criminally responsible individuals were involved in this offense: Commito and Carl Mattison. Therefore, the district court erred when it found that Commito was subject to a § 3B.1(a) adjustment based on the mail fraud offense alone. 17 Once the pre-guideline offenses are taken into account, however, we cannot say that an upward adjustment under § 3B1.1(a) was clearly erroneous. Although the district court made no finding as to the number of participants involved, the pre-sentence report reveals that far more than five individuals joined with Commito in the criminal activity. In addition, the pre-sentence report overwhelming supports the district court's finding that Commito organized the kickback scheme: Commito put the FBI agents in touch with other individuals willing to engage in a kickback scheme, organized the method of payment, and arranged for the concealment of those payments from the various companies being defrauded. Therefore, we affirm Commito's guideline sentence.