Opinion ID: 553849
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Adjustment

Text: 16 The proper standard of review for a district court's conclusion that an adjustment under the Guidelines is inapplicable depends on the mixture of fact and law necessary to that court's determination. United States v. Ortiz, 878 F.2d 125, 126-27 (3d Cir.1989); see 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3742 (1988). Where the decision is grounded on an essentially factual basis, we defer to the district court's findings and reverse only for clear error. However, if the alleged error is legal, the issue should be reviewed de novo. Id.; see also United Stated v. Daughtrey, 874 F.2d 213, 217 (4th Cir.1989); Cf. United States v. Mejia-Orosco, 867 F.2d 216, 220-21 (5th Cir.) (role in the offense is a factual determination, albeit complex; a district court decision not to apply an adjustment based on such a determination reversed only for clear error), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 109 S.Ct. 3257, 106 L.Ed.2d 602 (1989). Because the district court's denial of an adjustment was based on a legal interpretation of the Guidelines rather than a factual determination of Bierley's role in the offense, we engage in plenary review. 17 In Chapter 3, Part B, the United States Sentencing Commission, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. Sec. 994(d)(9) (West Supp.1990), provided for adjustment of a defendant's offense level predicated on his or her role in the offense. See U.S.S.G. Sec. 5H1.7. If the defendant plays an aggravating role in the offense, an upward adjustment may be warranted under Sec. 3B1.1, the Aggravating Role Guideline, which provides:Based on the defendant's role in the offense, increase the offense level as follows: 18 (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. 19 (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. 20 (c) If the defendant was an organizer, leader, manager, or supervisor in any criminal activity other than described in (a) or (b), increase by 2 levels. U.S.S.G. Sec. 3B1.1 21 A defendant's mitigating role as a minor or minimal participant in concerted activity justifies a downward adjustment under Sec. 3B1.2. The Mitigating Role Guideline provides: 22 Based on the defendant's role in the offense, decrease the offense level as follows: 23 (a) If the defendant was a minimal participant in any criminal activity, decrease by 4 levels. 24 (b) If the defendant was a minor participant in any criminal activity, decrease by 2 levels. 25 In cases falling between (a) and (b), decrease by 3 levels. U.S.S.G. Sec. 3B1.2 26 Both the Aggravating and Mitigating Role Guidelines use the term participant, which is defined in the Commentary to Sec. 3B1.1 as follows: A 'participant' is a person who is criminally responsible for the commission of the offense, but need not have been convicted. U.S.S.G. Sec. 3B1.1, comment. (n. 1). 27 The district court concluded that the Mitigating Role Guideline, Sec. 3B1.2, was not applicable to Bierley because Bierley is the only Defendant in this crime. App. at 221. However, the fact that there is only one defendant does not necessarily mean that there was only one participant. For example, other persons criminally responsible for the offense may not have been apprehended, or may have cooperated with the government and never been charged. Thus, there are situations where a sole defendant may be subject to adjustment of offense level upward or downward under Chapter 3, Part B. In this case, Bierley could be viewed as taking part in concerted activity involving an agreement to mail and receive material depicting children in sexually explicit conduct. However, Simpson, the only person with whom Bierley dealt, was an undercover government agent who was not criminally responsible. Thus, Bierley was not only the sole defendant, he was also the sole participant, as that term is defined in the Guidelines. 28 We must therefore consider whether an adjustment for role in the offense is available under Secs. 3B1.1 or 3B1.2 for the sole participant in an offense. The Introductory Commentary to Chapter 3, Part B explains that [w]hen an offense is committed by more than one participant, Sec. 3B1.1 or Sec. 3B1.2 (or neither) may apply. U.S.S.G. Ch. 3, Pt. B, intro. comment. Similarly, the commentary to Sec. 3B1.4 states that [m]any offenses are committed by a single individual or by individuals of roughly equal culpability so that none of them will receive an adjustment under [Part B]. U.S.S.G. Sec. 3B1.4, comment. This commentary strongly suggests a threshold requirement of more than one criminally responsible participant for any adjustment in offense level under Secs. 3B1.1 or 3B1.2, whether the departure is upward or downward, despite the absence of an explicit statement to that effect in Sec. 3B1.1(c) and Sec. 3B1.2. 29 This follows because the adjustments authorized for role in the offense are directed to the relative culpability of participants in group conduct. See United States v. Daughtrey, 874 F.2d at 216. As the court stated in United States v. Gordon, 895 F.2d 932, 935 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 111 S.Ct. 131, 112 L.Ed.2d 98 (1990), mitigating role adjustments apply only where there has been group conduct and a particular defendant is less culpable than other members of the group to such a degree that a distinction should be made at sentencing between him and the other participants. In Gordon, the court reversed the district court's downward adjustment of two points for a defendant who claimed he was merely a drug courier, because the defendant produced neither evidence of participation by anyone else nor the scope of his own involvement with another participant. Id. at 936. 30 Of the three subsections under Sec. 3B1.1 dealing with an upward adjustment, two subsections, (a) and (b), apply by their language only if the criminal activity involved five or more participants or was otherwise extensive. In contrast, subsection (c), which authorizes an upward adjustment for an organizer, leader, manager, or supervisor in any criminal activity other than described in (a) or (b), does not explicitly require more than one participant. Its construction, therefore, presents an issue analogous to that we have here in interpreting the downward adjustment of Sec. 3B2. Because the language of Secs. 3B1.1(c) and 3B1.2 is arguably ambiguous in light of the failure to explicitly require a second participant, we must attempt to ascertain the Sentencing Commission's intent. We can best determine that intent in this instance by reference to the applicable commentary. 31 Several courts of appeals have relied on that commentary to hold that more than one participant is necessary for a Sec. 3B1.1(c) adjustment, and have declined to permit an upward adjustment where only one culpable individual was involved. See United States v. DeCicco, 899 F.2d 1531, 1535-36 (7th Cir.1990); United States v. Tetzlaff, 896 F.2d 1071, 1075 (7th Cir.1990); United States v. Carroll, 893 F.2d 1502, 1509 (6th Cir.1990). 32 We recognize that at least one court has declined to follow the commentary, and permitted an upward adjustment even though only one participant was involved. See United States v. Anderson, 895 F.2d 641 (9th Cir.) (declining to apply Guidelines commentary as to participant for purposes of upward adjustment under Sec. 3B1.1(c) where word was not explicitly included), reh'g granted, 911 F.2d 380 (9th Cir.1990). We agree, however, with the dissent in that case that the commentary should be regarded as an integral part of the Guidelines package. Id. at 647 (Kozinski, J., dissenting). See United States v. Ofchinick, 877 F.2d 251, 257 (3d Cir.1989) (Commission commentary is a more accurate reflection of its intent in promulgating the Guidelines than ordinary legislative history.). 33 In summary, although the Commission could have chosen to permit adjustments under the Role in the Offense Guideline without reference to the number of participants involved, the Guideline as we interpret it does not do so. We find persuasive the suggestion in the Guideline Commentary that there must be more than one participant for any mitigating adjustment for Role in the Offense under U.S.S.G. Sec. 3B1.2. Thus, we conclude that the district court did not err in calculating Bierley's Guideline range without downward adjustment under Sec. 3B1.2.