Opinion ID: 609813
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Adjustment of Offense Level for Role in the Offenses

Text: 38 Fagan asserts that both district courts erred by increasing his offense level under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(c), which provides for a two-level increase upon a finding that the defendant was an organizer, leader, manager, or supervisor of an offense involving less than five participants. We review these findings for clear error. United States v. Peters, 962 F.2d 1410, 1415 (9th Cir.1992). 39 Fagan first argues that the district courts erred because neither court made specific findings to support its application of section 3B1.1(c). We disagree. The records show that each district judge considered the information in the presentence report and adopted the government's argument in favor of the two-level increase. In addition, before each district court, Fagan had an opportunity to present evidence and an argument to the contrary. That is all that is required [to support a section 3B1.1(c) adjustment]. Peters, 962 F.2d at 1415 (citing United States v. Rigby, 896 F.2d 392, 394 (9th Cir.1990)). 40 Fagan next argues that there was no evidence to support the district court's findings that he was an organizer, leader, manager, or supervisor. The records belie this argument; in both cases the evidence showed that Fagan exercised control over his co-defendants in the commission of the offenses. When a buyer arrived at the gate to the house from which Fagan was selling cocaine base, one of Fagan's co-defendants would approach the buyer, get the money, and return to Fagan. Fagan, who remained on the porch, would take the money, count it, and give the cocaine base to his co-defendants, who would then deliver it to the buyer. Furthermore, Fagan resided in the house and exercised control over it. In light of this evidence, the district courts' findings that Fagan was an organizer, leader, manager, or supervisor are not clearly erroneous. See United States v. Carvajal, 905 F.2d 1292, 1296 (9th Cir.1990) (where defendant exercised control over person who made a single delivery of cocaine, section 3B1.1 adjustment for major role in the offense was not clearly erroneous).