Opinion ID: 721130
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: organizer or leader of a criminal activity

Text: 2 Cooper contends that the district court clearly erred in finding him to be an organizer or leader of a criminal activity that involved five or more participants or was otherwise extensive under § 3B1.1(a). Cooper does not dispute that there were at least five criminal participants. He argues that no enhancement should have been imposed under § 3B1.1 because the Presentence Report found that Cooper, Lindley, and Jensen appear to be equal in their decision-making authority[.] The commentary to § 3B1.4 provides: Many offenses are committed ... by individuals of roughly equal culpability so that none of them will receive an adjustment under this Part. Cooper contends that it would be inequitable to impose the § 3B1.1 enhancement on him alone. 3 To be eligible for this upward departure, Cooper must have exercised some control over one or more other criminal participant. United States v. Hoac, 990 F.2d 1099, 1110 (9th Cir.1993). Cooper: 1) recruited and exercised control over his assistant, Russell-Myette, 2) took more compensation then Lindley or Jensen, 3) exercised the greatest control over the funds diverted from investors, and 4) asked Jensen to resign when she refused to divert more funds from Summit Trust's cash deposits. Even if this departure creates a sentence disparity between Cooper and Lindley, [d]isparity in sentencing among co-defendants is not, by itself, a sufficient ground for attacking an otherwise proper sentence under the [G]uidelines. United States v. Taylor, 991 F.2d 533, 536 (9th Cir.1993). The disparity must also be the result of incorrect or inadmissible information, or an incorrect application of the Sentencing Guidelines. United States v. Carpenter, 914 F.2d 1131, 1136 (9th Cir.1990). Cooper has not made this showing.