Opinion ID: 819878
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Aggravating Role Enhancements

Text: As relevant to this case, Guidelines § 3B1.1 authorizes two enhancements for a defendant’s role in criminal activity involving at least five participants. See U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(a), (b). A defendant who is an “organizer or leader” of the criminal activity is subject to a four-level enhancement. U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(a). A “manager or supervisor (but not an organizer or leader)” of the criminal activity is subject to a three-level enhancement. U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(b). Defendants do not argue that the conspiracy involved fewer than five participants. Instead, they dispute the district court’s characterization of their roles in the conspiracy. A number of factors are taken into account when determining a defendant’s role in the offense: [T]he 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 -5- 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. U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1 cmt. n.4.
Guerra-Guala argues that the evidence was insufficient to support the district court’s finding that he was an “organizer” or “leader” of the conspiracy under Guidelines § 3B1.1(a). He contends that he was simply a contact person for the conspiracy and that Yuris was actually in charge. The evidence at the sentencing hearing showed that Guerra-Guala purchased drugs for the conspiracy, determined the price at which these drugs were sold, and directed his coconspirators concerning the management of the drug proceeds, the storage and processing of the drugs, and the delivery of the drugs to customers. Freichels testified that “[i]t was always Mr. Guala that was directing everyone. No one told him what to do.” Tr. 30. Indeed, when Guerra-Guala decided to return to Guatemala, he determined who his successors would be and what roles they would play in the conspiracy. Construing the terms “organizer” and “leader” broadly, United States v. Molina-Perez, 595 F.3d 854, 862 (8th Cir. 2010), we conclude that the district court did not clearly err by imposing an enhancement under Guidelines § 3B1.1(a).
Chehuen Lopez argues that the district court erred in applying the three-level “manager” or “supervisor” enhancement because his role in the conspiracy was that of a mere “dispatcher.” “[W]e have defined the terms ‘manager’ and ‘supervisor’ quite liberally, holding that a defendant can be subject to this enhancement for having managed or supervised only one other participant in the criminal conspiracy.” United States v. Lopez, 431 F.3d 313, 317-18 (8th Cir. 2005). Additionally, the -6- enhancement “‘may apply even if the management activity was limited to a single transaction.’” Id. at 318 (quoting United States v. Zimmer, 299 F.3d 710, 724 (8th Cir. 2002)). It is undisputed that Chehuen Lopez began acting as the contact person for the conspiracy in September 2010. As the contact person, Chehuen Lopez would take orders from customers and negotiate the place of delivery. He would then direct the conspiracy’s runner, whom, according to Leblonde, Chehuen Lopez had trained, to deliver the drugs and collect the money from the customer. Given this evidence, the district court’s finding that Chehuen Lopez was a manager or supervisor was not clearly erroneous. See United States v. Cole, 657 F.3d 685, 687-88 (8th Cir. 2011) (per curiam) (upholding enhancement where defendant “transported/and or directed the transportation” of drugs and directed a coconspirator to drive him from city to city to deliver drugs); Lopez, 431 F.3d at 316-18 (upholding enhancement where defendant asked his roommate to “serve as a lookout on one occasion”).