Opinion ID: 166964
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Sufficiency of the Evidence: Five or More Persons

Text: 45 Next, Eva Atencio alone challenges the sufficiency of the evidence that she acted in concert with five or more other persons with respect to whom such person occupies a position of organizer, a supervisory position, or any other position of management, as required by 21 U.S.C. § 848(c)(2)(A). Unlike the drug quantities discussed in § 848(b)(2)(A), the five or more persons requirement must be proven, at most, with respect to the series of violations discussed in subsection (c)(2), and not with respect to the agreed-upon violations (or any one felony violation) that makes up the series. See Almaraz, 306 F.3d at 1038-39 (10th Cir.2002) (analyzing dicta from Richardson, 526 U.S. at 823, 119 S.Ct. 1707). To satisfy this requirement, a defendant need not have had regular personal contact with the five persons she supervised, managed, or organized, as [t]he mere delegation of managerial and supervisory duties will not defeat an individual's ultimate status. United States v. Apodaca, 843 F.2d 421, 426 (10th Cir. 1988). The statute requires that the defendant hold a position of organizer, supervisor, or manager with respect to persons, which would appear to exclude a defendant who performed no duties beyond bookkeeping. Compare 21 U.S.C. § 848(c)(2)(A) (requiring five or more persons with respect to whom [the defendant] occupies a position of organizer, supervisor, or manager), with 21 U.S.C. § 848(b)(1) (contemplating a separate role for principal administrator [or] organizer... of the enterprise). Still, the defendant need not be the only manager, and a co-manager of the enterprise can be included as one of the five others with respect to whom the defendant holds a supervisory position. Almaraz, 306 F.3d at 1040. 46 The government concedes that Eva Atencio was primarily in charge of the money. Aple. Br. 43. Her handwriting appeared in most of the drug ledgers, and she typically made payments to the drug transporters who made trips to Mexico. Yet the government also presented evidence that Eva Atencio held a supervisory position with respect to certain co-managers and drug transporters. The recorded conversation reveals that she gave specific directions to Mr. Duran, her father, and Popeye. The angry phone call recounted by Mr. Duran suggests that she also held a supervisory position with respect to her brother and unspecified loaders in Mexico. According to Mr. Palma, four named drug transporters (Rogelio, Carmen Romero, Blanca Guerro and her husband Paco) worked for both Edward and Eva Atencio. R. Vol. II, pp. 673-76. Further, both Mr. Palma and Mr. Duran characterized Eva as one of the bosses of the organization. Id. at 755; R. Vol. I, p. 404. Viewed in the light most favorable to the government, the record reveals that Eva Atencio held a managerial or supervisory position with respect to at least eight individuals, and possibly many others. The jury therefore had sufficient evidence to convict under § 848(c)(2)(A).