Opinion ID: 988682
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: If the defendant was an organizer, leader,

Text: manager, or supervisor in any criminal activ- ity other than described in (a) or (b), increase by 2 levels. At sentencing, the presentence report recommended a two-level increase in McLamb's base offense level on the money laundering count under USSG § 3B1.1(c), stating that McLamb was an organizer and leader of a criminal act. (J.A. 380). The district court adopted this recommendation and finding without comment. A year and a half after McLamb was sentenced, the Sentencing Commission amended the commentary to USSG § 3B1.1 by adding a new Application Note 2: To qualify for an adjustment under this section, the defendant must have been the organizer, leader, manager, or supervisor of one or more other participants. An upward departure may be warranted, however, in the case of a defendant who did not organize, lead, manage, or supervise another participant, but who nevertheless had management responsibility over the property, assets, or activities of a criminal organization. USSG § 3B1.1, comment. (n.2) (Nov. 1993). The Commission stated that this amendment clarifies the operation of[USSG § 3B1.1] to resolve a split among the courts of appeal. USSG, App. C, amd. 500 (effective Nov. 1, 1993). The split, between the First, Third, Sixth and Ninth circuits on the one hand 6 and the _________________________________________________________________ 6 See United States v. Fuentes, 954 F.2d 151 (3d Cir.), cert. denied,112 S. Ct. 2950 (1992) (requiring degree of control over other persons for USSG § 3B1.1 to apply); United States v. Mares-Molina, 913 F.2d 770 (9th Cir. 1990) (same); United States v. Fuller , 897 F.2d 1217 (1st Cir. 1990) (same); United States v. Carroll, 893 F.2d 1502 (6th Cir. 1990) (same). 8 Fourth7 on the other, concerned whether an enhancement under USSG § 3B1.1 was appropriate if the defendant had only exercised control over property, assets, or criminal activity with no exercise of control over one or more participants. In Chambers, 985 F.2d at 1263, our circuit took the view that a defendant's management control over property, assets, or criminal activities could trigger enhancement. Id. at 1268. The 1993 amendment to the commentary of USSG § 3B1.1 is not listed in USSG § 1B1.10, which sets forth the amendments that may apply retroactively to reduce a defendant's sentence. See United States v. Capers, 61 F.3d 1100, 1109 (4th Cir. 1995). McLamb argues the amendment is clarifying rather than a substantive change in the law, and thus should be applied retroactively to reduce his sentence despite the fact USSG § 1B1.10 does not list it as an amendment having retroactive effect, see id. (court may apply a post-sentence clarifying amendment even though USSG § 1B1.10 does not list it as having retroactive effect). In Capers, we recently rejected this very argument, holding the 1993 amendment to the commentary of USSG § 3B1.1 is not clarifying, but amounts to a substantive change in the law, and thus, may not be applied retroactively to reduce a defendant's sentence. Id. at 1112-1113. After application of several factors used for distinguishing between a clarifying amendment and an amendment that changes substantive law, we concluded that the amendment: is not a mere clarification because it works a substantive change in the operation of the guideline in this circuit. The amendment has the effect of changing the law in this circuit. Before the amendment, a defendant in this circuit could receive the enhancement without having exercised control over other persons; after the amendment, the defendant must have exercised control over other persons to warrant the enhancement. Id. at 1110 (emphasis added). _________________________________________________________________ 7 See United States v. Chambers , 985 F.2d 1263 (4th Cir.) (defendant may be a manager even though he did not directly supervise other persons), cert. denied, 114 S. Ct. 107 (1993). 9 Although we are convinced that had McLamb been sentenced after the effective date of the amended commentary, the enhancement would have been inappropriate,8 under Capers, we may not apply the 1993 amendment retroactively, and thus, the question becomes whether the district court appropriately applied the enhancement under the pre-amendment state of the law. We believe the district court correctly applied the enhancement. McLamb initiated the money laundering transaction with the undercover agent and told him exactly how to structure the transaction to avoid the IRS reporting requirement. McLamb also directed a person under his employ, the financial officer, to prepare a document necessary to complete the money laundering transaction. Thus, although McLamb did not exercise control over participants as is now required under the amended version of USSG § 3B1.1, he exercised sufficient control over the criminal activity to warrant the enhancement under pre-amendment law. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's denial of McLamb's motion on this claim.