Opinion ID: 196263
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Pagan-San-Miguel

Text: 74 Pagan-San-Miguel challenges his sentence on two grounds, neither of which has merit. He asserts he should not have been given a four level increase as a leader or organizer of the activity under Sec. 3B1.1(a) of the Sentencing Guidelines. See United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual, Sec. 3B1.1(a) (Nov. 1991). He also argues he should have been given a downward adjustment of two levels for acceptance of responsibility under U.S.S.G. Sec. 3E1.1(a). Absent a mistake of law, the district court's determination of a defendant's role may be set aside only for clear error. United States v. Tejada-Beltran, 50 F.3d 105, 111 (1st Cir.1995). There was no error. 75 The facts outlined earlier establish Pagan-San-Miguel's leadership and organizational role. Fontalvo testified that Pagan-San-Miguel was the land person in charge of all the merchandise. Indeed, his code names in the operation were Gigante, Padrino, and Godfather. Pagan-San-Miguel's argument that the court made no specific finding that at least four others were under his leadership and control does not help him. It was obvious that nine others, at the least, were involved in addition to Pagan-San-Miguel. And retention of control over other participants ... is not an essential attribute of organizer status. Tejada-Beltran, 50 F.3d at 113. 76 As to acceptance of responsibility, the determination of the sentencing judge is entitled to great deference on review. U.S.S.G. Sec. 3E1.1, comment. (n. 5). The fact that Pagan-San-Miguel in pre-trial plea bargaining unsuccessfully offered to plead guilty to the drug counts if certain conditions were met does not provide a sufficient basis to reverse the district court's decision. This adjustment is not intended to apply to a defendant who puts the government to its burden of proof at trial by denying the essential factual elements of guilt, is convicted, and only then admits guilt and expresses remorse. U.S.S.G. Sec. 3E1.1, comment. (n. 2). His argument is not enough to reverse the district court's determination that he failed to demonstrate[ ] a recognition and affirmative acceptance of personal responsibility for his criminal conduct. U.S.S.G. Sec. 3E1.1(a); see also United States v. Curran, 967 F.2d 5, 7 (1st Cir.1992).