Opinion ID: 771935
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Enhancement for Aggravating Role

Text: 22 Under U.S.S.G. 3B1.1(c), a sentencing court may impose a two-level upward adjustment [i]f the defendant was an organizer, leader, manager, or supervisor in any criminal activity involving fewer than five participants. Application Note 4 states that relevant factors under this Guideline include the exercise of decision making authority, the nature of participation in the commission of the offense, . . . the nature and scope of the illegal activity, and the degree of control and authority exercised over others. U.S.S.G. 3B1.1(c), cmt. n.4. 23 This court reviews for clear error a district court's determination that a defendant qualifies for an adjustment under U.S.S.G. 3B1.1(c). United States v. Maldonado, 215 F.3d 1046, 1050 (9th Cir. 2000). For such an adjustment to be appropriate, there must be evidence to support a finding that the defendant occupied one of the four specified roles, not merely that the defendant was more culpable than others who participated in the crime. United States v. Harper, 33 F.3d 1143, 1150 (9th Cir. 1994). When a defendant supervises other participants, she or he need exercise authority over only one of the other participants to merit the adjustment. Maldonado, 215 F.3d at 1050. Further, [a] single incident of persons acting under a defendant's direction is sufficient evidence to support a two-level role enhancement.  Id. 24 Before imposing the enhancement, the district court found, among other facts, that (1) the carjacking was Defendant's idea; (2) Defendant's actions during the incident were more serious than Johnson's; (3) Defendant was in a position of control with respect to Johnson, as evidenced by Johnson's and Klein's testimony; and (4) Defendant told Johnson to cut Klein's throat, which Johnson did. Under Maldonado, even that single incident is sufficient to support the enhancement. 25 Defendant's argument establishes only that he disagrees with the district court's assessment of the evidence. But we are reviewing for clear error, and the district court's findings are not clearly erroneous. 26