Opinion ID: 4445950
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Gonzalez’s aggravating role enhancement

Text: Gonzalez objected in the court below to the application of the aggravating role adjustment to her oﬀense level, but she did so on a diﬀerent basis than she presents now on appeal. Section 3B1.1 of the Sentencing Guidelines provides that the sentencing judge shall increase the defendant’s oﬀense level based on whether the defendant played an “aggravating role” in committing the oﬀense. An aggravating role is an “organ‐ izer, leader, manager, or supervisor of one or more other par‐ ticipants.” U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1 n.2. Relevant here, “[i]f the defend‐ ant was a manager or supervisor (but not an organizer or leader) and the criminal activity involved five or more partic‐ ipants or was otherwise extensive,” the oﬀense level is in‐ creased by three. U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(b). Before the district court, Gonzalez argued that she did not manage or supervise five or more participants—only three: her son, her son’s girlfriend, and the girlfriend’s sister. Gonzalez, however, conflated the requirement for the size of the criminal activity overall—“five or more participants or otherwise extensive”—with the re‐ quirement for the number of participants in the criminal en‐ terprise that the defendant had to manage or supervise—“one or more other participants.” Compare § 3B1.1(b), with § 3B1.1 n.2.2 Gonzalez now argues that none of the three alleged su‐ pervisees qualify as a “participant” under the Guidelines. 2 Despite Gonzalez’s initial confusion, she no longer disputes that the Zamudio drug trafficking enterprise involved five or more participants. Nos. 18‐2009, et al. 11 Gonzalez advances this basis for her sentencing objection for the first time on appeal, and thus forfeited the argument. It is a completely diﬀerent argument than the one she pre‐ sented to the district court, and she denied the judge the op‐ portunity to address the argument. Consequently, our review of the district court’s application of the Guidelines is for plain error only. See United States v. Harris, 791 F.3d 772, 779 (7th Cir. 2015); United States v. Hawkins, 480 F.3d 476, 478 (7th Cir. 2007). To prevail under plain error, Gonzalez must show that “(1) an error occurred, (2) the error was plain, (3) it aﬀected the defendant’s substantial rights, and (4) it seriously aﬀected the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the proceed‐ ings.” United States v. Pierson, 925 F.3d 913, 919 (7th Cir. 2019). For a defendant to receive an oﬀense‐level enhancement for being a supervisor of one or more participants, the partic‐ ipant must be “criminally responsible for the commission of the oﬀense, but need not have been convicted.” U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1 n.1. The participant need not have been charged ei‐ ther, as long as “the participant could have been charged.” United States v. Pabey, 664 F.3d 1084, 1097 (7th Cir. 2011). A participant is criminally responsible under § 3B1.1 if he or she knowingly assisted the criminal enterprise. Id. Mere knowledge of the conspiracy, however, is not enough. The record suﬃciently supports a finding that at mini‐ mum Gonzalez’s son, whom she trusted, knowingly assisted his mother in laundering money. In her post‐Miranda state‐ ments, Gonzalez told agents that initially her son refused to wire transfer money for her. After she asked him again, he agreed, but told her he would only do it the one time. A total of four wire transfers were made in his name. Gonzalez also recruited her son’s girlfriend, who made nine wire transfers 12 Nos. 18‐2009, et al. and six separate bank deposits at Gonzalez’s direction. See United States v. Watts, 535 F.3d 650, 660 (7th Cir. 2008) (aggra‐ vating role enhancement applied to a defendant who re‐ cruited his wife to participate in bank fraud conspiracy based on findings that the wife opened a bank account using false information and attempted to deposit check from co‐con‐ spirator). Importantly, Gonzalez never contested any of these factual allegations. Those facts were also set forth in the PSR. Gonzalez ob‐ jected to the application of certain enhancements and related underlying facts (such as the fact that she possessed a gun), but did not object to the facts concerning the roles of her son, his girlfriend, and his girlfriend’s sister in the money launder‐ ing scheme. To the contrary, at sentencing, Gonzalez argued that she supervised only these three people, not five people— that is more than the “one or more” participants the Guide‐ lines require for the aggravating role enhancement. In over‐ ruling Gonzalez’s objection, the district court expressly stated that “[Gonzalez] was the manager and supervisor of three.” There was no error in the district court’s application of the aggravating role enhancement, and certainly not one that was plain. We aﬃrm Gonzalez’s sentence.