Opinion ID: 3161534
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Manager-Supervisor Enhancement

Text: Second, Moralez claims that he was neither a manager nor supervisor of the conspiracy but merely a wholesale distributor of cocaine to the coconspirators, and thus the court erred in imposing the three-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(b). The district court's factual findings, including its determination of a defendant's role in the offense, are reviewed for clear error . . . . United States v. Gaines, 639 F.3d 423, 427-28 (8th Cir. 2011) (quoting United States v. Bolden, 622 F.3d 988, 990 (8th Cir. 2010)). [W]e construe the terms 'manager' or 'supervisor' broadly under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(b) . . . . Id. at 428 (quoting United States v. Adamson, 608 F.3d 1049, 1056 (8th Cir. 2010)). The present case is factually similar to Gaines. In Gaines, the defendant purchased large quantities of cocaine, some of which he converted into cocaine base. Id. at 426. Gaines then broke down the larger quantities into smaller amounts and sold the drugs to dealers at prices he set. Id. at 427. He did not, however, exercise any control over the price at which the buyers resold the drugs. Id. On these facts, we found the district court's finding that Gaines was a manager or supervisor under § 3B1.1(b) not clearly erroneous.8 Id. Acknowledging that the case presented was Fed. R. Evid. 702 advisory committee's note to 2000 amendment. 8 Gaines found that statements by other panels seeming to require direct control by the defendant over one or more coconspirators for the manager-supervisor enhancement to be applicable narrowed the holding of an earlier panel. Gaines, 639 -7- a close question, we based our conclusion on United States v. Vasquez-Rubio, 296 F.3d 726 (8th Cir. 2002), where we reached the same outcome on similar facts. Gaines, 639 F.3d at 428-29. Looking to the factors listed in the Guidelines, U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1 cmt. 4, we noted the following commonalities between Gaines's conduct and that in Vasquez-Rubio: (1) the defendant's manufacture of the drug; (2) his distribution at a set price for the purpose of redistribution; (3) the nature and broad scope of the illegal activity; and (4) the nature of the defendant's participation in the crime. Gaines, 639 F.3d at 429. Here, Moralez engaged in nearly the same conduct as in Gaines and VasquezRubio. He broke down large quantities of cocaine into smaller quantities for distribution to dealers. He sold at a set price but controlled neither the frequency nor amount of purchase nor the price upon resale. Moralez did not manufacture cocaine base from the cocaine, but he did cut, or dilute, it. He distributed the cocaine to at least six others.9 Like Gaines, Moralez participated in the crime as the primary provider of narcotics for redistribution. Based on these similarities, we find no clear error in the district court's manager-supervisor enhancement.