Opinion ID: 153171
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Decrease in Olson's Sentence

Text: 23 The government contends in a cross-appeal that the district court improperly granted Olson a four-level decrease for minimal participation in his adjusted offense level under the Sentencing Guidelines. See U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(a). A trial court' findings concerning a defendant's role in a particular offense are treated by an appellate court as factual findings, which are subject to deferential review under the clearly erroneous standard. United States v. Santistevan, 39 F.3d 250, 253 (10th Cir.1994). The finding will not be disturbed unless it is without factual support in the record, or if after reviewing the evidence we are left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made. Santistevan, 39 F.3d at 253-254. Application note one to section 3B1.2 states that the mitigating circumstance for minimal participation 24 is intended to cover defendants who are plainly among the least culpable of those involved in the conduct of the group. Under this provision, the defendant's lack of knowledge or understanding of the scope and structure of the enterprise and of the activities of others is indicative of a role as a minimal participant. 25 In determining Olson was only a minimal participant in the overall conspiracy, the district court noted, 26 I find that there was a great deal that [Olson] was not aware of in this matter. And had he been aware, I would be speculating on what might have happened. We don't know is the point. And it seems unfair to me to, in effect, charge him with things--with activities that clearly were kept from him and were not disclosed and were significant in terms of this operation from the very beginning because it was within a day or two of the [couple's investment of one million dollars]--around March 31, 1993 of [their] investment that those funds were slipping away through loan transactions with [Hand] that [Olson was] not aware of and through loans, dunning (sic) loans to Stephen and to Cross & Associates. 27 The district court's ruling that Olson was plainly among the least culpable of the conspirators is not clearly erroneous. The court's ruling is supported by the actions of his co-conspirators in their acquisition of investor funds without Olson's knowledge and their apparent attempt to keep much of the details of the scam from Olson. 28 In March of 1993, Hand and the Cross brothers decided to borrow $300,000 of the divorced couple's investment funds from their brokerage account. The three conspirators agreed to classify this transaction as a loan. As the months passed more money would be borrowed from investor funds. Investor funds were controlled by Cross & Associates in Atlanta, and investor statements were prepared and mailed from Cross & Associates in Atlanta. The conspirators in Atlanta perhaps attempted, although unsuccessfully, to keep Olson from discovering that the roll program was a ruse. Hand and the Cross brothers all misinformed Olson to further the investment scheme. While Olson was aware the program was non-existent and participated in its overall objectives, thus making him a member of the conspiracy, the district court did not clearly err in determining Olson was a minimal participant because of the actions of his co-conspirators. 29 AFFIRMED.