Opinion ID: 668225
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Sec. 3B1.1(c) Two-Point Enhancement

Text: 11 Section 3B1.1(c) of the sentencing guidelines provides for a two-point enhancement of a defendant's base offense level if he was an organizer, leader, manager, or supervisor in any criminal activity other than [that which involves five or more participants or was otherwise extensive]. U.S.S.G. Sec. 3B1.1(c). King contends that the district court erred when it increased his offense level under Sec. 3B1.1(c) because not only did Chiarella mastermind the scheme to sell the bonds but also because Chiarella, as a government agent, was not a participant in the criminal offense over whom King could have exercised any control. See U.S.S.G. Sec. 3B1.1, comment. (n. 1) (A person who is not criminally responsible for the commission of the offense (e.g., an undercover law enforcement officer) is not a participant.). Whatever the merits of these contentions may be, however, their focus on Chiarella completely ignores the district court's scrutiny of the extent of King's control over Stuart, his co-defendant. 12 The Presentence Report (PSR), whose factual findings the district court adopted, (see Appendix (App.) at 34B), states that shortly after his arrest, Stuart told investigators that King had recruited Stuart to assist him in selling the stolen bonds and that King had directed Stuart to deliver the first batch of 20 bonds to Chiarella. (PSR p 8.) Moreover, according to Stuart, it was King who planned the mechanics of the exchange of bonds in the parking lot on November 18, 1993, instructing him to hold the bonds and to deliver them to King only after he had received a signal from King over a citizen band radio. (PSR p 9.) The PSR concluded that King was an organizer/leader in the criminal offense and recommended that he receive a two-point offense level enhancement pursuant to U.S.S.G. Sec. 3B1.1(c). (PSR p 19.) 13 At King's sentencing hearing the district court did not specifically state whether it agreed with the PSR's characterization of King as the organizer/leader of the scheme to sell the stolen bonds or instead saw him as a manager or supervisor in the criminal activity. Rather, it concluded that King was a major player in the scheme to sell the bonds, noting that: 14 [Although] Mr. Chiarella arranged for a means of disposing of these bonds, ... Mr. King set up the entire operation of first testing the situation by delivering a portion of them and then setting up the rather not complex but rather detailed plan for turning over the remaining bonds in the parking lot.... 15 (App. at N.T. 16.) Because Sec. 3B1.1(c) provides for a two-level enhancement if the defendant acted as either an organizer or leader or alternately as a manager or supervisor, we will sustain the district court's decision to increase King's offense level under that section if there were sufficient factual grounds for the district court to have concluded that King acted in any of those roles. See U.S.S.G. Sec. 3B1.1, comment. (backg'd.) (noting the inclusiveness of Sec. 3B1.1(c)). 16 The direction and control of others is a recurrent theme in legal definitions of the terms manager and supervisor. See, e.g., Black's Law Dictionary 960, 1438 (6th ed. 1990). 6 As noted above, the district court adopted the factual findings in the PSR that King recruited Stuart to assist him in the scheme to sell the stolen bonds, instructed him to deliver the first batch of 20 bonds to Chiarella and then later, at the meeting on November 18, 1992, directed him to hold 109 bonds and deliver them to King only upon King's signal. None of those factual determinations is clearly erroneous. Indeed, King does not seriously contest their validity. 7 Thus, even if Chiarella did, as King contends, mastermind the scheme to sell the bonds, that in no way detracts from the evidence that King directed Stuart's role in the scheme. 17 In fact, the district court specifically found that Chiarella arranged the means of disposing the bonds but that King set up both the initial delivery of 20 bonds and the later plan for turning over 109 bonds in the parking lot. We conclude from the evidence of King's control over Stuart in those two activities that King acted at least as a manager or supervisor, if perhaps not as an organizer or leader, in the scheme to sell the stolen bonds and the district court's conclusion was not legally erroneous. Accordingly, we will affirm the district court's decision to enhance King's offense level by two points under Sec. 3B1.1(c). 18