Opinion ID: 2671492
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Paul Irlmeier

Text: Paul contends that [w]hile the definition of organizer or leader may be broad, there must also be a point where the action taken [by coconspirators] is so insignificant that it does not constitute control over the person such that a defendant cannot be considered a leader or organizer. However, our review of the record confirms that Paul qualifies for the U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1 enhancement so as to preclude safety-valve relief. First, the government presented testimony from Paul's ex-wife, Traci Irlmeier (Traci). Traci explained how Paul directed or ordered her to water marijuana plants. Traci also watched their children while Paul harvested marijuana; bought products like Ziploc bags, potting soil, and a food saver machine; watered -8- Randy's marijuana plants; and transplanted marijuana plants, all at Paul's request and in furtherance of the conspiracy. Paul recruited Traci and directed her activities in the conspiracy. The district court did not err in determining that he was at least a supervisor of the operation. See U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1 cmt. n.4. One transaction or occurrence is sufficient to qualify for the enhancement. See Lopez, 431 F.3d at 318. Paul's conduct toward Traci is sufficient for Paul to qualify for the enhancement. In addition, the government also demonstrated that Paul asked Johann Vesper, one of Paul's farmhands, to transport water to a field so that marijuana plants could be watered. Paul also directed David Andreasen, one of Paul's customers, to water, harvest, and process the marijuana crop in exchange for compensation. Paul further asked for and received the assistance of Chris Hulsing, another farmhand, in cutting and transporting marijuana. Paul's degree of control therefore exceeds that in Lopez where the defendant simply asked his roommate to serve as a lookout on one occasion or in Erhart where the defendant merely recruited people to join the conspiracy. See Lopez, 431 F.3d at 318; United States v. Erhart, 415 F.3d 965, 973 (8th Cir. 2005). Based on Paul's recruitment of these four individuals and his directions to them, the district court did not clearly err in applying the enhancement. Paul was therefore ineligible for the safety valve.