Opinion ID: 2312412
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Determining the Appropriate Enhancement

Text: As an initial matter, Alcantara argues that the District Court erred in enhancing his offense level by four levelsthe designated enhancement for leaders or organizersrather than three levelsthe designated enhancement for managers or supervisorsbecause the Court classified him at sentencing as a supervisor, rather than as a leader or organizer. See United States v. Gotti, 459 F.3d 296, 348 (2d Cir.2006) (noting that U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(b) provides for a three-level enhancement if `the defendant was a manager or supervisor (but not an organizer or leader) and the criminal activity involved five or more participants' (quoting § 3B1.1(b))). Both the Court's use of the word supervisor and its citation to § 3B1.1(c) [17] (rather than § 3B1.1(b) or (a)) appear to have been simple misstatements, and did not reflect the Court's factual findings. The Pre-Sentence Report (PSR) and the government had both argued for a four-level leadership role enhancement. [18] The District Court also expressly found that the evidence showed a hierarchy; that Hiciano represented the whole organization; and that on the top [we] have Alcantara, who certainly exercise[d] a certain amount of control over Hiciano. The Court then stated that it was in agreement with the Government and also with probation's assessment that the defendant is entitled to the aggravating four-point enhancement. The sentencing record reveals no discussion of other types of role enhancements. We have no reason to believe the Court intended to impose anything other than the four-level leader or organizer enhancement. [19]