Opinion ID: 24281
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Cage’s Role as a Leader/Organizer

Text: Cage asserts that the district court erred in assessing him a two level increase for his role as a leader/organizer pursuant to USSG § 3B1.1. He essentially argues that the record evidence, which he insists demonstrates only that he purchased and re-sold cocaine, is insufficient to support the district court’s determination that he was a leader/organizer and the resulting imposition of a two level increase of his offense level. Such an 43 225 F.3d 556 (5th Cir. 2000). 44 974 F.2d 22 (5th Cir. 1992). 25 adjustment “is proper only if [Cage] was ‘the organizer or leader of at least one other participant in the crime and if he asserted control or influence over at least that one participant.’”45 We have previously observed that [t]he commentary to sentencing guideline section 3B1.1 suggests that the court consider the following factors in making the organizer, leader, manager, supervisor determination: (1) the exercise of decision-making authority; (2) the nature of participation in the commission of the offense; (3) the recruitment of accomplices; (4) the claimed right to a larger share of the fruits of the crime; (5) the degree of participation in planning or organizing the offense; (6) the nature and scope of the illegal activity; and (7) the degree of control and authority exercised over others.46 With these factors in mind, we conclude that the district court did not clearly err in determining that the evidence adduced at trial demonstrated that Cage was a leader/organizer within the meaning of USSG § 3B1.1. The wiretap recordings show that Brown reported his progress to Cage on a number of occasions and that Cage instructed Brown as to amounts owed and the actions he was to take in furtherance of the drug conspiracy. Moreover, when Brown confirmed to Cage and Easterling the poor quality of some cocaine, he did so at Cage’s direction. The district court was on firm ground in its assessment of Cage’s role in the conspiracy. 45 United States v. Perkins, 105 F.3d 976, 980 (5th Cir. 1997) (quoting United States v. Jobe, 101 F.3d 1046, 1065 (5th Cir. 1996)). 46 United States v. Barretto, 871 F.2d 511, 512 (5th Cir. 1989) (quoting Application Note 3, S 3B1.1). 26 C. Cage’s Ineffective Assistance of Counsel Claim Cage contends, for the first time on appeal, that he was prejudiced by the ineffective assistance provided by his counsel, in violation of his Sixth Amendment rights.47 “The general rule in this circuit is that a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel cannot be resolved on direct appeal when the claim has not been raised before the district court since no opportunity existed to develop the record on the merits of the allegations.”48 We have “undertaken to resolve claims of inadequate representation on direct appeal only in rare cases where the record allowed us to evaluate fairly the merits of the claim.”49 Because Cage did not raise this issue before the district court and the record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to review his claim, we decline to do so. We therefore dismiss his claim without prejudice to his right to raise the issue in an application for collateral relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.50