Opinion ID: 785332
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Sentencing Enhancement Under Section 3B1.1

Text: 22 Henley also challenges the district court's imposition of a three-level enhancement pursuant to section 3B1.1 of the Sentencing Guidelines for his supervisory role in the conspiracy. The proper standard of review to employ in evaluating the district court's imposition of this enhancement is subject to some debate. Prior to the Supreme Court's decision in Buford v. United States, 532 U.S. 59, 121 S.Ct. 1276, 149 L.Ed.2d 197 (2001), it was clear that we reviewed a district court's factual findings for clear error and legal conclusions de novo. United States v. Solorio, 337 F.3d 580, 600 (6th Cir.2003). In Buford, however, the Supreme Court held that the district court's application of section 4B1.2 should be reviewed deferentially rather than de novo, in light of the fact-bound nature of the legal decision. 532 U.S. at 66, 121 S.Ct. 1276. We reserve judgment as to whether the district court's application of section 3B1.1 to the facts of this case should be reviewed deferentially or de novo, because we would affirm using either standard of review. 23 Under section 3B1.1, a defendant's base offense level should be increased as follows: 24 (a) If the defendant was an organizer or leader of a criminal activity that involved five or more participants or was otherwise extensive, increase by 4 levels. 25 (b) If the defendant was a manager or supervisor (but not an organizer or leader) and the criminal activity involved five or more participants or was otherwise extensive, increase by 3 levels. 26 U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(a), (b). 27 In order to apply a three-level enhancement under section 3B1.1(b), there need only be evidence to support a finding that the defendant was a manager or supervisor of at least one other participant in the criminal activity, and that the criminal activity involved five or more participants or was otherwise extensive. United States v. Caseslorente, 220 F.3d 727 (6th Cir. 2000). The Sentencing Guidelines direct the court to consider factors such as the exercise of decision-making authority, the nature of participation in the commission of the offense, the recruitment of accomplices, the claimed right to a larger share of the fruits of the crime, the degree of participation in planning or organizing 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, comment. (n.4). The key issue is not direct control or ultimate decision-making authority, but rather the defendant's relative responsibility. United States v. Gaitan-Acevedo, 148 F.3d 577, 595-96 (6th Cir.1998). 28 The district court found that the evidence established that five or more participants were involved in the criminal activity — Henley, Sanders, Luy, Scott from Atlanta, Chad Brown, Candiac Stanfield, Robert Walker and Christy Croy — and that Henley was at the center of the conspiracy. The court also found that: 29 [Henley] got this methamphetamine and he did control the distribution of it of what he got here locally. As has been pointed out in the presentence report and in the evidence at trial, and here by Mr. Piper, he did employ people, others, perhaps, at least as many as four other persons to help him collect drug debts, enforcers, if you will. That includes Walker and Sanders, and the two people at the Logan's Roadhouse. And he did recruit those people to do this. And this was an extensive conspiracy that involved a large amount of drugs. And he controlled the flow of those drugs to a large amount of people. 30 Sentencing Tr. JA 330. 31 In light of this evidence, the court concluded that Henley was certainly a manager or supervisor because he did manage the distribution of the drugs and he managed other people. Sentencing Tr. JA 331. As a result, the district court found that Henley should receive a three-level enhancement pursuant to section 3B1.1(b), but it declined to impose the four-level enhancement urged by the United States. 32 Henley asserts that there is no evidence to support the district court's conclusion that he employed enforcers to intimidate or assault other individuals. We disagree. Sanders testified that Henley and Robert Walker assaulted Chad Brown because of a drug debt. Sanders also testified that he had assisted Henley in assaulting an individual named Brett Oakey over a drug debt. Additionally, there was testimony that Henley was assisted by two other men when he assaulted Michael Williams in the restroom of Logan's Roadhouse. That evidence is sufficient to support the district court's conclusion that Henley was a manager or supervisor under section 3B1.1(b). 33 Henley also argues that several of the individuals identified by the court — particularly Stanfield and Croy — were not participants within the meaning of section 3B1.1, but rather were merely drug customers. A participant is defined as a person who is criminally responsible for the commission of the offense, but need not have been convicted. U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1, comment. (n.1). Even excluding Stanfield and Croy, however, we find that the evidence adduced at trial supports the district court's determination that five or more individuals were criminally responsible for the offense.