Opinion ID: 782695
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Manager or Supervisor Enhancement

Text: 37 The district court increased Woods' offense level by three levels for having been a manager or supervisor at MTI. The enhancement applied if Woods was a manager or supervisor ... and the criminal activity involved five or more participants or was otherwise extensive. U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(b) (2002). Woods must have managed or supervised one or more other participants. U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1 cmt. n. 2. 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. § 3B1.1 cmt. n. 1. The enhancement was improper because the record fails to show that Woods managed or supervised at least one other participant. 38 At sentencing, the government identified only four participants besides Woods: Flarida, Garcia, Rachel Bennett, and William Maloney. 5 The government does not contend that Woods managed or supervised Flarida. Thus, the enhancement was proper only if Woods managed or supervised Garcia, Bennett, or Maloney, all of whom were closers. But the record does not indicate that Woods managed or supervised any closer. The only activity the government identified in specific relation to closers was that Woods referred customers back to closers for reprepping. This activity was not managerial or supervisory in nature, however. It was simply part of Woods' role as a verifier. 39 Because all of the other participants identified (besides Flarida) were closers, and because the record fails to show that Woods managed or supervised any closer, a preponderance of the evidence does not establish that Woods managed or supervised any other participant. Application of the enhancement was thus clearly erroneous. 40