Opinion ID: 543684
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Roach's Sentencing Challenge

Text: 28 Roach contends that the district court erred by not decreasing his offense level on the ground that his participation in the crime was minor or minimal. See Sentencing Guidelines Sec. 3B1.2. Our standard of review on this factual issue is whether the district court's decision was clearly erroneous. United States v. Erves, 880 F.2d 376, 381 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 110 S.Ct. 416, 107 L.Ed.2d 381 (1989). We find it odd that only Roach rather than Sellers raises this issue on appeal. The evidence plainly indicates that Roach had more comprehensive involvement in the crime than Sellers. 14 Roach's comparison of his culpability with Farmer's misconstrues the nature of the crime of which he was convicted. Although it was Farmer who administered the fisticuffs, it was Roach who betrayed his public trust by using his official powers under color of ... law  to create the situation which made Farmer's assault possible. The fact that Farmer did not assault Hill when the two were alone at Farmer's place of business indicates that Farmer was emboldened to do so only after Hill was held helpless in official custody by Roach and Sellers. The indictment charged Roach and Sellers, not merely with willfully aiding and abetting Farmer's assault [on Hill] for the purpose of obtaining a confession, but with willfully and directly violating Hill's right to be kept free from harm while in official custody. The district court's refusal to grant the requested reduction was not only not clearly erroneous, a contrary decision would have been clearly erroneous.