Opinion ID: 545168
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: William M. Headrick, II

Text: 10 Headrick argues that the district court improperly assessed a two level increase in his sentence for a leadership role in the criminal offense. Under section 3B1.1 of the Sentencing Guidelines, an offender plays an aggravating role in an offense if the offender was an organizer, leader, manager or supervisor. According to Headrick, the Government failed to demonstrate sufficient evidence of a leadership role that would support sentence enhancement under section 3B1.1. 11 The standard of review of the Sentencing Guidelines is well-established. This Court will affirm sentences imposed by district judges who make factual findings that are not clearly erroneous, and who apply the guidelines to those findings. United States v. Mejia-Orosco, 867 F.2d 216, 221 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 109 S.Ct. 3257, 106 L.Ed.2d 602 (1989). 12 In the present case, the district court's determination that Headrick occupied a leadership role is not clearly erroneous. Application Note 3 to section 3B1.1 outlines several factors a court may consider in determining whether a criminal defendant occupies a leadership role: the exercise of decision making authority, the recruitment of accomplices, the degree of participation in planning or organizing the offense, the degree of control and authority exercised over others, etc. Here, there is sufficient evidence to indicate that Headrick set in motion the chain of events that culminated in the deadly Lakeland Stationers fire. Headrick recruited the individuals who actually started the blaze. Headrick led these individuals to the Lakeland Stationers building for a preliminary inspection and provided them a key to the building for their entrance on the evening of the fire. 13 Headrick apparently contends that because Paden's sentence was enhanced by Paden's leadership role in the offense, the court should not have enhanced Headrick's sentence for the same reason. However, Application Note 3 to section 3B1.1 provides that more than one person can qualify as a leader or organizer of a criminal offense. In this case, the court found that both Headrick and Paden occupied such a leadership role. This Court can find no error in the district court's determination.
14 Headrick also argues that the district court erred in refusing to grant a downward departure from his offense level based upon his alleged substantial assistance to the Government. Whether or not a criminal defendant has provided substantial assistance to the Government is a factual question. The district court's determination of this factual question, like its findings with respect to the leadership role of the defendant, Mejia-Orosco, 867 F.2d at 221, are subject to the clearly erroneous standard of review. This Court will uphold a district judge's refusal to depart from the guidelines unless the refusal is in violation of law or is clearly erroneous. United States v. Thomas, 870 F.2d 174, 176 (5th Cir.1989). 15 Under the Sentencing Guidelines, a district court properly may reduce a criminal defendant's sentence on the basis of substantial assistance in the investigation or prosecution of another person. See United States v. White, 869 F.2d 822, 828-29 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 109 S.Ct. 3172, 104 L.Ed.2d 1033 (1989). In order to evaluate the propriety of such a reduction, the district court must be able to evaluate the extent of the defendant's assistance. Ordinarily, the government will file a motion that recites the assistance provided. The absence of a government motion, though, does not preclude a district court from entertaining a defendant's showing that the government is refusing to recognize such substantial assistance. Id. at 829. 16 In this case, however, the district court had absolutely no evidence on which it could evaluate the extent of Headrick's assistance to the Government. The Government did not file a motion that recited any assistance provided by Headrick. Headrick filed a Motion to Depart from the Sentencing Guidelines, but the motion stated only that Headrick had been of substantial assistance to the Government--the motion did not specifically recount the extent of Headrick's assistance. Moreover, Headrick's testimony at his sentencing hearing did not detail the extent or nature of Headrick's assistance. In short, the district court had no evidence from which it could determine that Headrick's assistance was substantial. Accordingly, this Court cannot conclude that the district court's refusal to depart from the Sentencing Guidelines was clearly erroneous.