Opinion ID: 661489
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Role in the Offense Sentencing Issue

Text: 19 The district court sentenced Schultz to a prison term of 63 months, plus 5 years of supervised release, a fine of $25,000, and a $50 special assessment. This sentence was based on a total offense level of 17 and Criminal History Category of VI. 20 Because the Sentencing Guidelines dictate very different treatment of the three major categories of marijuana products--marijuana, hashish, and hashish oil--the trial court held an evidentiary hearing to help it determine the chemical identity of the marijuana product found in Schultz's home. After considerable and conflicting expert testimony, the court found that the definition of hashish oil in the Guidelines was too ambiguous to fit clearly the substance in question. The court therefore felt obliged by the rule of lenity to find that, for sentencing purposes, the substance was not hashish oil but mere hashish. 21 The original Presentence Investigation Report prepared by Probation Officer John C. Cole gave Schultz a base offense level of 28. As a result of the judge's ruling that the substance would be considered hashish and not hashish oil, the base level became 18. The Report awarded him a two-point reduction for his acceptance of responsibility, and assigned him a two-point enhancement for his role in the offense. The judge accepted the enhancement but gave Schultz a three-point reduction for his guilty plea. This left the total offense level at 17. Schultz appeals the two-point enhancement. 22 Section 3B1.1 of the Guidelines provides for the enhancement of an individual's offense level because of his aggravating role in the offense. Subsections (a) and (b) provide enhanced punishment for large criminal enterprises (involving five or more participants). Subsection (c) instructs a sentencing court to increase a defendant's offense level by two levels if the defendant was an organizer, leader, manager, or supervisor in any criminal activity other than described in (a) or (b). U.S.S.G. Sec. 3B1.1. 23 In the Presentence Report, the probation officer justified the enhancement under subsection (c) in the following manner: 24 According to the DEA, Schultz was the source of supply to at least 4 other known individuals, though there was no extensive organizational structure. The background following the Third Application Note of the Commentary in 3B1.1 states that in relatively small criminal enterprises that are not otherwise to be considered as extensive in scope or in planning or preparation, the distinction between organization and leadership and that of management and supervision is of less significance than in larger enterprises that tend to have clearly delineated divisions of responsibility. This is reflected in the inclusiveness of 3B1.1(c). Thus, Mr. Schultz, pursuant to ... Guideline Section 3B1.1(c), shall receive a 2 level enhancement. 25 The district court accepted this enhancement, finding that Schultz organized an operation that imported illegal drugs into the country and distributed them in the community. 26 Role in the offense is a traditional determination, made in every sentencing, which long antedates the Guidelines. Under the Guidelines, a role in the offense determination is a factual one, which, upon appellate review, is subject to the clearly erroneous standard, U.S. v. Williams, 894 F.2d 208, 213-14 (6th Cir.1990), and Congress tells us that we shall give due deference to the district court's application of the guidelines to the facts. 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3742(e). 27 Nothing in the record shows, with regard to this offense, that Schultz directly led, managed, or supervised others in Jamaica or Florida or Ohio in the manufacturing, importation, or distribution of controlled substances. It is well established in this Circuit that enhancement pursuant to Sec. 3B1.1 requires the participation of at least two culpable individuals so that leadership of some criminal enterprise or organization, however minimal, can be claimed. U.S. v. Carroll, 893 F.2d 1502, 1509 (6th Cir.1990). Furthermore, mere buying and selling, without other evidence, is not sufficient to show that a defendant is a leader, organizer, manager, or supervisor. U.S. v. Mays, 902 F.2d 1501, 1503 (10th Cir.1990); U.S. v. Weidner, 703 F.Supp. 1350, 1354 (N.D.Ind.1988), aff'd, 885 F.2d 873 (7th Cir.1989). 28 But these principles do not mean that the defendant must directly employ or control a partnership or enterprise. Organizing and coordinating an interstate, or, as the district court found in this case, an international scheme of distribution that brings contraband into a community for distribution on a continuing basis should be sufficient to qualify a single individual as an organizer of criminal activity. With due deference to the district court's factual findings, therefore, we affirm Schultz's two-point enhancement for his role in the offense.