Opinion ID: 677825
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Izzo's Abuse of a Position of Trust

Text: 28 At sentencing, the district court enhanced Izzo's base offense level two points on the ground that he abused a position of trust. See U.S.S.G. Sec. 3B1.3. The enhancement was levied because Izzo, through his position as a forklift operator at Cargo Transport, was able to examine warehouse manifests and identify for Viola which containers might contain drugs Viola was trying to locate. We do not think the enhancement was warranted on the facts of this case. 29 At the time of Izzo's sentencing, as it does now, Sec. 3B1.3 of the Sentencing Guidelines provided for a two offense level increase [i]f the defendant abused a position of public or private trust ... in a manner that significantly facilitated the commission or concealment of the offense.... U.S.S.G. Sec. 3B1.3 (1992). The phrase public or private trust, as the Sentencing Commission clarified in an amendment to the application notes effective after Izzo's sentencing, refers to a position of public or private trust characterized by professional or managerial discretion (i.e., substantial discretionary judgment that is ordinarily given considerable deference). U.S.S.G. Sec. 3B1.3, Application Notes 1 (1993). While we do not think the defendant's relationship to the victim needs to rise to the level of a fiduciary, not every employee occupies a position of trust subject to the enhancement. [T]he primary trait that distinguishes a person in a position of trust from one who is not is the extent to which the position provides the freedom to commit a difficult-to-detect wrong. United States v. Castagnet, 936 F.2d 57, 61-62 (2d Cir.1991) (quoting United States v. Hill, 915 F.2d 502, 506 (9th Cir.1990)). 30 Izzo's position as a forklift operator did not involve a substantial amount of discretionary judgment, and he was not subject to relaxed supervision because of the position. See U.S.S.G. Sec. 3B1.3, comment. (n. 1). Significantly, Izzo was not able to obtain special access to the manifests because he occupied this position. The manifests were kept conspicuously in the office of Cargo Transport's manager, and were accessible by any employee. Moreover, the fact that Izzo's actions were easily detectable, and there were simple objective means to prevent him from gaining access to the documents, demonstrates that his ability to gain such access was not furthered by reason of his position. Izzo may have abused his position as an employee by surreptitiously viewing the manifests and disclosing their contents, but his position as a forklift operator was not a repository of public or private trust within the meaning of Sec. 3B1.3. Accordingly, the two-level enhancement was not justified.