Opinion ID: 752460
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Loveless' Role in the Offense

Text: 32 Loveless contends that the district court erred when it enhanced his base offense level by three points for being a manager or supervisor of a criminal conspiracy, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1. 33 U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1 provides for a three-point increase in a defendant's base offense level if he or she was a manager or supervisor (but not an organizer or leader) and the criminal activity involved five or more participants or was otherwise extensive. U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1. Factors the district court should consider in determining whether an upward adjustment is appropriate include the nature of the defendant's role in the offense, the recruitment of accomplices, and the degree of participation in planning or organizing the offense. United States v. Flores, 73 F.3d 826, 835 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 518 U.S. 1027, 116 S.Ct. 2568, 135 L.Ed.2d 1084 (1996) (citation omitted). This Court reviews a sentencing court's factual determination of a participant's role in the offense for clear error. United States v. Padilla-Pena, 129 F.3d 457, 469 (8th Cir.1997). 34 Loveless argues that the district court erred in determining that he was a manager or supervisor of the conspiracy because the evidence at trial showed that he only sold drugs to Reber. Reber, Loveless contends, was the supervisor of the conspiracy. We reject this contention. The guidelines require that [the defendant] supervised 'one or more other participants ' to trigger this enhancement. United States v. Pena, 67 F.3d 153, 157 (8th Cir.1995) (quoting U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1, comment. n. 2) (emphasis added). 35 The evidence at trial indicated that Loveless recruited Reber to distribute methamphetamine and that he attempted to recruit Shari Trompke to distribute larger quantities of methamphetamine. See United States v. Tran, 122 F.3d 670, 673 (8th Cir.1997) (finding that defendant's recruitment of others to participate in the conspiracy demonstrated that he was a manager or supervisor). Loveless also fronted drugs to Reber, thus assuming a financial risk for some of the drug sales. See Pena, 67 F.3d at 156 (finding that defendant was a manager or supervisor of a drug conspiracy, in part, because he retain[ed] the financial risk of distribution by fronting or consigning the drugs). More importantly, however, the evidence at trial demonstrated that Loveless exercised a great deal of control over Reber and the sales Loveless made to him; Loveless decided where the sales would take place, the price for the methamphetamine, and the method of payment. A defendant's determination of the price to be charged for narcotics is further evidence of his managerial or supervisory role. United States v. Pierce, 907 F.2d 56, 57 (8th Cir.1990). 36 Considering the record as a whole, we find that the district court's determination that Loveless was a manager or supervisor under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1 was not clearly erroneous.