Opinion ID: 2981150
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Enhancement for Role in Offense

Text: The standard of review applicable to the application of an enhancement under U.S.S.G. §3B1.1(a) is undecided. United States v. Walls, 546 F.3d 728, 734 (6th Cir. 2008). In the past, this court “reviewed the district court’s factual findings for clear error and its legal conclusions de novo.” United States v. McDaniel, 398 F.3d 540, 551 n. 10 (6th Cir. 2005). However, in Buford v. United States, 532 U.S. 59, 66 (2001), the Supreme Court held that a district court’s application of the Guidelines should be reviewed deferentially rather than de novo. See United States v. Vasquez, 560 F.3d 461, 473 (6th Cir. 2009). This issue need not be resolved in this case, because the leadership adjustment was appropriate under either standard of review. Under § 3B1.1(a), a defendant’s offense level is increased by four levels “[i]f the defendant was an organizer or leader of a criminal activity that involved five or more participants or was 13 No. 11-5433 United States v. Velez otherwise extensive[.]” U.S.S.G. §3B1.1(a). A defendant qualifies for the enhancement upon a finding by the district court that the defendant has exercised decisionmaking authority, recruited accomplices, received a larger share of the profits, was instrumental in the planning phase of the criminal venture, or exercised control or authority over at least one accomplice. Vasquez, 560 F.3d at 473. More than one person involved in an offense may be a leader or organizer. Id. (citing U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1, cmt. n. 4). The probation officer determined that Velez merited a four-level enhancement under § 3B1.1(a) for his role in the offense as the organizer or leader of a conspiracy involving five or more participants. Velez objected to this finding, arguing that he was simply the middleman in the oxycodone distribution chain and that the evidence was insufficient to show that he exercised organizational or leadership control or direction over another culpable participant in the offense. The probation officer relied on testimony that Velez directed Horton and Pierce regarding the collection of the drug debt from Smallman on July 21, 2008, that he directed Still and Eyzaguirre to travel to Florida in September of 2008 to obtain oxycodone, that he told Smallman how to wire drug proceeds to him, and that he directed Green to obtain hotel rooms for him in her name. The probation officer also concluded that the conspiracy included at least eleven participants. The district court, noting the comments of the probation officer, found that the participants in the conspiracy included Velez, Horton, Pierce, Smallman, Green, Eyzaguirre, Still, Cortless, Joshua Cody (who accompanied Smallman on his last trip to obtain pills from Velez in Florida and obtained 100 pills from Smallman), and Cody’s mother. The district court found by a preponderance of the evidence that Velez directed Horton and Pierce to collect the drug debt owed by Smallman, 14 No. 11-5433 United States v. Velez that he directed Eyzaguirre to travel from Florida to Tennessee to transport oxycodone, that he directed Still to deliver money to Eyzaguirre in Florida and to obtain oxycodone from Eyzaguirre, that he instructed Green to obtain motel rooms for him, and that he directed Smallman to wire the payment for drug debts to Velez in Florida. The record also includes evidence that Velez recruited Smallman as an accomplice after a falling-out with Horton, and that he told Smallman to come to Florida to deliver money which Smallman owed to Velez. The district court further found that Velez was making a large part of the profit from the sale of the pills in Tennessee, and that he exercised decision-making authority over participants in the conspiracy, gave directions and orders, planned the activities of the conspiracy and supervised the participants. The district court did not err in applying the §3B1.1(a) leadership role enhancement.