Opinion ID: 170577
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Manager-Supervisor enhancement

Text: A defendant receives a three-point increase in criminal offense level if he 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(b). According to the Guidelines commentary, [t]o qualify for an adjustment under this section, the defendant must have been the organizer, leader, manager, or supervisor of one or more other participants. Id., cmt. 2. This means that the enhancement applies only when the defendant had decision-making authority or control over a subordinate. United States v. Roberts, 14 F.3d 502, 524 (10th Cir.1993). The question of whether a defendant is a manager or a supervisor is a mixed question of law and fact. See United States v. Cruz Camacho, 137 F.3d 1220, 1223-24 (10th Cir.1998). We held, in Cruz Camacho, that because the ultimate conclusion of whether the defendant qualifies for this enhancement is so firmly rooted in sophisticated factual determinations based on the sentencing court's assessment of the broad context of the crime, ... the sentencing court's determination that the defendant was an organizer ... is a factual finding subject to the clearly erroneous standard of review. Id. at 1223. Because the context of the crime is so important to the ultimate conclusion, the district court must conduct a thorough review of all subsidiary facts that might be relevant to the ultimate manager-supervisor determination. At sentencing, there were two competing versions of the nature of Mr. Peña-Hermosillo's relationship to other drug dealers identified in the PSR. The PSR and the government's proffer indicated that the drug distribution enterprise in which Mr. Peña-Hermosillo engaged involved well more than five participants, including Kelly, Becerill-Garcia, Hogan, Anthony Losoya, Kylie Lemmon-Cantrell, and persons identified as Wetto (or Guero) and Sancho. R. 40-43. Evidence indicated that Kelly transported drugs on the defendant's behalf, that Becerill-Garcia stored drugs for the defendant and was forced to accompany the defendant to Colorado for a drug pick-up, that Hogan stored drugs for the defendant at his body shop, that Losoya packed a gun while he accompanied Mr. Peña, that Wetto accompanied the defendant on a drug run, that Sancho made many deliveries and trips down to Utah on Mr. Peña's behalf, and that Lemmon-Cantrell, who was also the mother of his second child, removed guns and drugs from the defendant's residence at his request when the police were on the way. Id. This evidence included Ms. Kelly's prior statements to police that she ran drugs for Peña and that he had paid her expenses on drug runs to Utah. Though not disputing many of the primary facts as stated in the PSR and the government's proffer, defense counsel argued against application of the manager-supervisor enhancement on the ground that by virtue of his age, it was unrealistic to believe that Mr. Peña-Hermosillo was directing the adults in the operation. R. 33. With respect to Ms. Kelly, he stated that she was present and she would tell you that [Mr. Peña-Hermosillo] didn't supervise her and he didn't manage her and she has a drug problem ... and that her conduct was [not] related to anything but her own choices and not any pressure or any management or any supervision of Mr. Peña. R. 34. Ms. Kelly's unsworn statement to the court provided some support for this argument. She told the court that [i]t's not like he told people what to do. I have a mind of my own. Id. at 62. The district court and defense counsel also engaged in the following colloquy: THE COURT: Would you say [the defendant] was not the manager of the whole operation, but he did take the lead in some aspects of it? MR. SERELSON: I think that's probably a fair characterization, Your Honor. THE COURT: That's what it seemed to me, after I read it. MR. SERELSON: I believe that's a fair characterization. I would not dispute that. Id. at 34-35. Despite this concession, the seemingly pertinent evidence in the government's proffer, and the inconsistencies between defense counsel's proffer regarding Ms. Kelly's testimony and her prior statements to police, the district court did not hold an evidentiary hearing and provided almost no explanation for the denial of the enhancement. The sole reasoning given was as follows: ... I believe that there is good grounds to doubt the question of whether or not the defendant first was a minor [sic] or a supervisor. I think that he sold drugs, that he associated with those who did, that Miss Kelly was really not a subordinate. She was his common law wife, with whom he had a child and they were involved in drug trafficking when she met him and I don't think he really supervised them, so I'm going to grant the objection to the three-level increase for manager or supervisor. Id. at 47. Later, when imposing sentence, the court stated: I don't feel that you were a manager. Id. at 66. This explanation falls short of the required ruling under Fed.R.Crim.P. 32(i)(3)(B). Here, the basis for the court's feeling that Mr. Peña-Hermosillo was not a manager was anything but clear. Even assuming the court accepted Ms. Kelly's in-court statement and concluded from it that Mr. Peña-Hermosillo did not supervise, manage, or direct her drug trips and sales, the court failed to explain why the government's proffered evidence fell short of establishing Mr. Peña-Hermosillo's supervisory role over at least one of the other participants. The district court acknowledged that Mr. Peña-Hermosillo took the lead in some aspects of the operation, R. 34-35, but it did not state why this did not make him a manager-supervisor. Perhaps the district court found that Mr. Peña-Hermosillo's age made it improbable for him to exert such a significant supervisory role, as defense counsel argued, or maybe the court found the evidence proffered by the government and summarized in the PSR unbelievable. But the court did not say so. If the government's proffered evidence was credible, it certainly was sufficient to support a manager-supervisor enhancement. Without a more thorough explanation, we are left wondering how the district court interpreted the evidence and why he found that it did not support the offense level increase. Because the district court's reasoning was not definite and clear, we reverse and remand for further fact-finding and explanation. Williams, 374 F.3d at 947.