Opinion ID: 2811805
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Leadership of Abreu

Text: The PSR also states that Defendant supervised Abreu. Abreu, who had become acquainted with Defendant through the latter’s Latin music promotion business, informed law enforcement officers in early 2013 that Defendant was part 5 Paragraphs 4 to 15 of the PSR, insofar as they allege leadership conduct, allege that conduct solely in relation to Abreu. The probation officer’s response states that the Government claims to have audio recordings of Diaz instructing the four crewmen involved in the two vessel seizures. 17 Case: 14-10746 Date Filed: 06/25/2015 Page: 18 of 26 of a drug-trafficking organization. Abreu had learned of Defendant’s illegal activity after he, at Defendant’s request, registered under his own business’ name a vessel owned by Defendant and also purchased outboard motors for another of Defendant’s vessels. When the latter boat was interdicted and seized in December of 2012, Defendant then contacted Abreu, informed him of what had happened, and advised him “not to say anything” if contacted by law enforcement. Rather than follow Defendant’s advice, Abreu went to law enforcement authorities and began working as an informant. As an informant, Abreu communicated with Defendant and was again instructed by him to deny that they knew each other, should he be approached by law enforcement. Defendant also offered to involve Abreu in further cocaine-trafficking activities. At the sentencing hearing, the Government reiterated the allegations in ¶¶ 4- 15 of the PSR. To the extent those paragraphs pertain to Abreu, Defendant had previously admitted most of the conduct. 6 The Government called a witness, Drug Enforcement Agency Special Agent Jesse Ricks (“Agent Ricks”), to testify about the conduct alleged in ¶ 14, the essence of which was that Defendant “repeatedly lied to law enforcement.” But this allegation supported the enhancement for 6 Defendant did object to some details of those allegations at the sentencing hearing. Specifically, Defendant initially objected to ¶¶ 8, 10, 12, and 14 of the PSR. The objection to ¶ 8 was minor, as Defendant only contested the statement that the two outboard motors Abreu purchased were “for another boat [Defendant] had previously purchased.”6 He eventually withdrew his objections to ¶¶ 10 and 12, both of which pertained to his meetings with Abreu. 18 Case: 14-10746 Date Filed: 06/25/2015 Page: 19 of 26 obstruction of justice, and based on Agent Ricks’ testimony about Defendant’s misstatements to interviewing officers, the court accepted as proved the conduct in ¶ 14 and applied the enhancement for obstruction of justice. For his part, as to any role enhancement based on his interaction with Abreu, Defendant emphasized that Abreu was not part of the criminal conspiracy, pointing out that Abreu had initially been told that the vessels were being used as part of a music promotion, “to entertain artists and their family members.” Defendant also cited the Government’s similar position in the grand jury proceedings that Abreu “was an innocent third party.” The Government did not rebut Defendant’s argument on this point. Further, as the PSR itself makes clear, Abreu contacted law enforcement as soon as Defendant told him about the conspiracy. Nevertheless, the district court concluded that the Government had met its burden of proof in establishing the conduct alleged in the PSR in support of the role enhancement, and it applied the leadership enhancement. We, however, find insufficient the evidence in support of that enhancement. As Defendant correctly notes, before attempting to figure out whether Defendant had supervised Abreu as to requested tasks, one must first determine whether Abreu was a criminal participant at the time. Abreu cannot be considered a participant because the Government has nowhere alleged any criminal responsibility on Abreu’s part. At sentencing, the Government did point out that 19 Case: 14-10746 Date Filed: 06/25/2015 Page: 20 of 26 Defendant gave directions to Abreu prior to Abreu becoming an informant. Yet, the Government still did not contend that any of Abreu’s actions at this earlier time made him responsible for any crime. Cf. United States v. Dyer, 910 F.2d 530, 533 (8th Cir. 1990) (government informant could be counted as a participant because he criminally participated in the drug conspiracy prior to becoming an informant). As we explained in Williams, neither unethical conduct nor involvement with an extensive criminal organization suffices for the enhancement, absent criminal responsibility. 527 F.3d at 1249 (citing Yates, 990 F.2d at 1182). Without alleging, much less proving, that Abreu’s conduct made him in any way criminally responsible, the Government provided the district court with no foundation upon which to consider Abreu a participant for purposes of § 3B1.1. As a last-ditch argument on appeal, the Government concedes that if Abreu cannot be a participant for § 3B1.1 purposes, Defendant’s conduct toward him still proves his organizational leadership “because they show his efforts to direct the conduct of another in order to prevent the detection of the smuggling operation.” But that argument runs directly against Martinez’s requirement of “evidence that the defendant exerted some control, influence or decision-making authority over another participant in the criminal activity.” Martinez, 584 F.3d at 1026 (emphasis added); see also U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1, comment. (n.2) (“the defendant must 20 Case: 14-10746 Date Filed: 06/25/2015 Page: 21 of 26 have been the organizer, leader, manager, or supervisor of one or more other participants”) (emphasis added). Thus, that argument fails. In summary, because no evidence was provided to support Defendant’s leadership role with respect to the four crewmen and because Abreu cannot be considered a participant, we conclude that the district court erred in applying the § 3B1.1(a) enhancement to Defendant’s offense level. We therefore VACATE Defendant’s sentence and REMAND to the district court for resentencing without the leadership enhancement. See United States v. Canty, 570 F.3d 1251, 1257 (11th Cir. 2009) (“remand for further findings is inappropriate when the issue was before the court and the parties had an opportunity to introduce relevant evidence”) (citing United States v. Simons, 206 F.3d 392, 399 n.11 (4th Cir. 2000).