Opinion ID: 52776
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Organizer Role Enhancement

Text: Kerley also argues that the district court erred in finding that he was an organizer pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(c) and that Kerley, therefore, did not meet the criteria for a safety-valve reduction, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f) and 7 U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2.2 The safety-valve provision of § 5C1.2 implements 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f), and allows a court to sentence a defendant without regard to the statutory mandatoryminimum sentence if the defendant meets five criteria. United States v. Brownlee, 204 F.3d 1302, 1304 (11th Cir. 2000).3 There is no dispute that Kerley met four of the five criteria. The only issue in this appeal is whether Kerley was an “organizer, leader, manager, or supervisor of others in the offense.” 18 U.S.C. 3553(f); U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2(a). If he was, then the two-point enhancement under § 3B1.1(c) was proper, and Kerley was ineligible for safety-valve relief.4 Section 3B1.1(c) provides for a two-level increase in a defendant’s offense level if he was “an organizer, leader, manager, or supervisor in any criminal 2 We review the district court’s factual determinations in denying a safety-valve reduction for clear error. United States v. Cruz, 106 F.3d 1553, 1557 (11th Cir. 1997). We also review for clear error the district court’s determination of a defendant’s role in the offense. United States v. Mesa, 247 F.3d 1165, 1168 (2001). However, the district court’s application of the guidelines to its factual findings is reviewed de novo. United States v. Trujillo, 146 F.3d 838, 847 (11th Cir. 1998). 3 To be eligible for a safety-valve reduction, the defendant must show that: (1) he has no more than one criminal history point; (2) he did not use violence or threats of violence or possess a firearm in connection with the offense; (3) the offense did not result in death or serious bodily injury; (4) he was not an organizer, leader, manager or supervisor of the offense “as determined under the sentencing guidelines” and was not engaged in a continuing criminal enterprise; and (5) he truthfully provided to the government all information and evidence about the offense. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f)(1)-(5); U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2(a)(1)-(5). 4 While the government bears the burden of proving the applicability of a § 3B1.1(c) managerial role enhancement, United States v. Yates, 990 F.2d 1179, 1182 (11th Cir. 1993), the defendant bears the burden of proving his eligibility for the safety-valve reduction. Cruz, 106 F.3d at 1557. 8 activity . . . .” U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(c). “[T]he assertion of control or influence over only one individual is enough to support a § 3B1.1(c) enhancement.” United States v. Jiminez, 224 F.3d 1243, 1251 (11th Cir. 2000); see also U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1 cmt. n.2 (“To qualify for an adjustment under this section, the defendant must have been the organizer, leader, manager, or supervisor of one or more other participants.”). Factors to consider in determining whether the defendant qualifies for the § 3B1.1(c) role enhancement include: (1) the exercise of decision-making authority; (2) the nature of participation; (3) the recruitment of accomplices; (4) the claimed right to a larger share of the fruits of the crime; (5) the degree of participation in planning or organizing the offense; (6) the nature and scope of the illegal activity; and (7) the degree of control and authority exercised over others. U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1, cmt. n.4. Here, the record shows that the district court did not clearly err in concluding that Kerley was an organizer/manager under § 3B1.1(c). The government presented evidence that Kerley had great influence over his codefendants and played a significant role in organizing and maintaining the marijuana-growing operation. Kerley initiated the scheme to grow marijuana plants at the five houses; recruited his codefendants to join in the scheme; provided his codefendants with equipment and plants; checked on their operations; 9 harvested and processed the marijuana from their plants and took it to a distributor; and took a significant share of his codefendants’ profits from the sales. Because Kerley was an organizer/manager, the district court also did not clearly err in finding that Kerley was ineligible for safety-valve relief. AFFIRMED. 10