Opinion ID: 3064121
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Adequate Consultation with Counsel

Text: We reject Swaine’s argument that the sentencing court committed procedural error by not continuing the sentencing hearing sua sponte so Swaine’s counsel could discuss the leadership-role enhancement with Swaine. The district court asked Swaine’s counsel if he had sufficient time to review the revised PSI with Swaine, and counsel said he had. Swaine’s counsel advised the court that he had not seen the revised PSI until two days before sentencing, but said he had reviewed the role enhancement “briefly” with Swaine and was ready to argue Swaine’s objection to the enhancement. Neither Swaine nor his counsel asked the district court for more time to discuss the role enhancement. Swaine argues that he was prejudiced by the district court’s failure to allow him more time to discuss the role enhancement with his counsel, but does not explain how. In fact, Swaine’s counsel explicitly stated otherwise at sentencing. Swaine’s counsel told the court, “I’m not saying, for the record, that I’m prejudiced . . . . I’m not saying, Judge, that I–if I had additional time I would be able to file more than what the facts state in the case. . . . I was just trying to note that that’s conviction that a mistake has been committed.” United States v. Rodriguez-Lopez, 363 F.3d 1134, 1137 (11th Cir. 2004) (quotation marks omitted). 19 why I didn’t file any written objections to that.” Swaine’s counsel thoroughly argued his objection to the role enhancement at sentencing. Swaine has not identified any arguments that his counsel did not make that could have been discovered if he had more time to discuss the leadership-role enhancement. Thus, the district court did not procedurally err by failing to continue the sentencing hearing sua sponte so counsel could have further discussions with Swaine. B. Leadership-Role Enhancement Under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(a), a four-level enhancement applies where “the defendant was an organizer or leader of a criminal activity that involved five or more participants.” U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(a). In distinguishing a leadership role, the district court should consider the exercise of decision making authority, the nature of participation in the commission of the offense, the recruitment of accomplices, the claimed right to a larger share of the fruits of the crime, the degree of participation in planning or organizing the offense, the nature and scope of the illegal activity, and the degree of control and authority exercised over others. Id. § 3B1.1 cmt. n.4. The evidence at trial amply supported the leadership-role enhancement. There was evidence that Swaine: (1) was the prominent financier of the marijuana and cocaine conspiracy and made the decisions as to who would transport the drugs and how; (2) hired multiple people to transport hundreds of pounds of drugs 20 and thousands of dollars obtained from selling the drugs between Texas and Florida; (3) traveled separately from the couriers between Texas and Florida; (4) loaned drugs on credit to distributors who sold them for him; and (5) hired multiple people to store and deliver drugs for him. Furthermore, as shown by the amount of assets seized from Swaine, he kept the largest share of the proceeds for himself. Based on this evidence, the district court did not clearly err in applying the fourlevel leadership-role enhancement.6 United States v. Suarez, 313 F.3d 1287, 1294 (11th Cir. 2002).