Opinion ID: 196811
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Two-Level Enhancement for Leadership Role

Text: 79 Finally, Appellant appeals the two-level enhancement which the district court imposed for his leadership role in the offense. See U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(c). As we have said before, role in the offense determinations are fact intensive and we normally review for clear error. See United States v. Tejada-Beltran, 50 F.3d 105, 111 (1st Cir.1995); United States v. Schultz, 970 F.2d 960, 963-64 (1st Cir.1992), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 1069, 113 S.Ct. 1020, 122 L.Ed.2d 167 (1993) (citations omitted). Appellant argues that he and Schaller were, at best, equals and nothing more than partners in crime. 80 Under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(c), a two-level enhancement is warranted if the sentencing court determines that the criminal enterprise involved at least two participants, and the defendant exercised control over, or was otherwise responsible for organizing the activities of, at least one other individual in committing the crime. See, e.g., Morillo, 8 F.3d at 872; United States v. Akitoye, 923 F.2d 221, 227 (1st Cir.1991). For purposes of determining the overall number of participants, the defendant himself may be counted as one participant; [b]ut, he must exercise control over at least one other participant to warrant an upward adjustment. Morillo, 8 F.3d at 872 n. 13. In determining whether a defendant is an organizer or leader, the Sentencing Guidelines direct judges' attention to seven factors, including 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.; see Tejada-Beltran, 50 F.3d at 111-13 (This list is intended to be representative rather than exhaustive.). Finally, the government must bear the burden of proving that an upward role-in-the-offense adjustment is warranted. Morillo, 8 F.3d at 872. 81 Here, it is undisputed that Appellant and Schaller participated in the attempted arson of the Galleria II. Contrary to Appellant's contention that he and Schaller were mere equals, evidence was submitted at trial that it was Appellant's idea to burn the Galleria II; that Appellant devised the time and method of committing the offense; that Schaller was persuaded and, ultimately, recruited by Appellant after Appellant failed to hire someone else to commit the offense and after his unsuccessful attempt to start a fire in the attic; and that Schaller poured the gasoline at Appellant's request and informed Appellant when he was finished. Contrary to Appellant's argument, these factual findings satisfy the requirements for applying § 3B1.1(c). We are unpersuaded by Appellant's argument that the fact that Appellant asked or persuaded Schaller to pour gasoline does not show supervision over him. While it may not show supervision, it certainly shows--at a minimum--Appellant's exercise of decision making authority, his recruitment of accomplices, and the greater degree of his participation in planning and organizing the two arson attempts. Thus, finding no clear error in the district court's determination of Appellant's role, 32 we affirm the district court's two-level enhancement. United States v. Garcia, 954 F.2d 12, 18 (1st Cir.1992) (noting that, absent a mistake of law, sentencing court's role-in-the-offense determination is reviewed only for clear error).