Court Opinion

ID: 9914173
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-29 19:00:36.587769+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:10:33.153168
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-50787         Document: 00517016525             Page: 1      Date Filed: 12/29/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit
                                      ____________                              United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                         Fifth Circuit

                                       No. 22-50787
                                                                                       FILED
                                                                               December 29, 2023
                                      ____________
                                                                                  Lyle W. Cayce
   United States of America,                                                           Clerk

                                                                       Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                             versus

   Efren Derma-Dominguez,

                                               Defendant—Appellant.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                           for the Western District of Texas
                                USDC No. 4:22-CR-54-1
                      ______________________________

   Before Stewart, Dennis, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Efren Derma-Dominguez pleaded guilty to possession with intent to
   distribute marijuana and methamphetamine. The district court sentenced
   him to 108 months of imprisonment, followed by a five-year term of
   supervised release. He now appeals, arguing that the district court incorrectly
   calculated his sentence and erred in applying a sentencing enhancement. For

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-50787     Document: 00517016525            Page: 2    Date Filed: 12/29/2023

                                    No. 22-50787

   the following reasons, we AFFIRM in part and VACATE and REMAND
   in part.
               I. FACTUAL & PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
          In January 2022, a U.S. Border Patrol agent initiated a traffic stop near
   Redford, Texas, on a vehicle driven by Derma-Dominguez. The agent
   observed that Derma-Dominguez appeared nervous, and the rear area of the
   vehicle was heavier than usual despite there being no other visible occupants
   in the vehicle. In addition, earlier in the day, the agent had observed and
   stopped a similar-looking vehicle that he suspected to be a scout for law
   enforcement.
          Upon searching the vehicle with Derma-Dominguez’s consent, the
   agent observed “several square bundles wrapped in black trash bags with blue
   tape and burlap in the rear of the vehicle.” Derma-Dominguez indicated that
   the bundles were marijuana. Upon further processing, it was later determined
   that the bundles contained approximately 450 pounds of marijuana. The
   agent also found in the vehicle two loaded AR-15 magazines and a bag
   containing 154 grams of methamphetamine. Derma-Dominguez was then
   placed under arrest.
          During    his   post-arrest   interview     with    Drug   Enforcement
   Administration (“DEA”) agents, Derma-Dominguez stated that he had been
   illegally living in the Midland, Texas area for several months when he began
   contacting people for human and drug trafficking work to make extra money.
   A man named “Saul,” the operator of a smuggling organization, started
   giving Derma-Dominguez jobs. After Derma-Dominguez successfully
   completed at least six alien smuggling jobs, he was promoted to drug
   smuggling. He initially worked with an individual named “Bolitas,” who
   worked for Saul. Then, after successfully completing several jobs, he was
   again promoted to working directly with Saul.

                                          2
Case: 22-50787      Document: 00517016525           Page: 3   Date Filed: 12/29/2023

                                    No. 22-50787

          Derma-Dominguez explained to the agents that his usual drug
   smuggling procedure involved transporting the drugs to a stash trailer run by
   Bolitas in Odessa, Texas, and that the organization usually arranged
   smuggling trips every 15 days from Lajitas, Texas, to Odessa. Earlier that day,
   he had traveled to Lajitas to pick up the marijuana that the U.S. Border Patrol
   agent found in his vehicle. He also advised the agents about two trailers in
   Odessa and Midland, Texas, where he was “staying at” and had previously
   taken illegal aliens. He later gave agents written consent to search both
   trailers. He further advised that the 154 grams of methamphetamine that was
   found in the vehicle was for his personal use.
          In March 2022, Derma-Dominguez pleaded guilty, without a plea
   agreement, to possession with intent to distribute 100 kilograms or more of
   marijuana and 50 grams or more of methamphetamine in violation of 21
   U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B). The probation officer prepared a presentence
   investigation report (“PSR”) in April 2022. Based on the converted total
   drug weight of 3,282.5 kilograms (202.5 kilograms of marijuana and 154
   grams of methamphetamine), the probation officer calculated a base offense
   level of 32. Derma-Dominguez received a two-level enhancement under
   U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(c) for being “an organizer, leader, manager, or supervisor”
   in the criminal activity, and a three-level decrease for acceptance of
   responsibility. This resulted in a total offense level of 31. His offense level,
   combined with his Category I criminal history, yielded a guideline
   imprisonment range of 108 to 135 months.
          Derma-Dominguez filed several objections to the PSR. He first
   challenged the § 3B1.1(c) enhancement, asserting there was no indication in
   the facts to suggest that he was anything other than a person transporting the
   drugs. The probation officer responded that the enhancement was correctly
   applied because Derma-Dominguez had management responsibility in the
   offense. This conclusion was drawn based on Derma-Dominguez’s

                                          3
Case: 22-50787      Document: 00517016525          Page: 4    Date Filed: 12/29/2023

                                    No. 22-50787

   agreement to smuggling ventures to gain the trust of the organization’s
   members, his continuous communication with the organization for
   smuggling jobs, and his admission to housing illegal aliens and firearms in the
   two trailers where he also lived. Derma-Dominguez further argued that he
   qualified for a safety valve adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(18)
   because he was not a leader or organizer in the offense. He also challenged
   the PSR’s inclusion of the methamphetamine to determine his base offense
   level because he had indicated that the methamphetamine found in his
   vehicle was for his personal use. Finally, he challenged the converted drug
   weight’s inclusion of the weight of the drug packaging.
          At sentencing, a DEA task force officer testified to Derma-
   Dominguez’s post-arrest statements that he did “such a good job” with
   smuggling aliens that the organization started giving him drug smuggling
   jobs, which were considered “higher value” jobs. The officer confirmed that
   Derma-Dominguez initially worked with a lower-ranking member of the
   organization but moved up to working directly with the organizer of the
   criminal enterprise. The officer also testified that the quantity of the
   methamphetamine found in the vehicle, which was in one large bag, indicated
   that the methamphetamine was for distribution.
          The district court overruled Derma-Dominguez’s objections to the
   § 3B1.1(c) enhancement, as well as the inclusion of the quantity of the
   methamphetamine in calculating his base offense level. In response to
   Derma-Dominguez’s challenge to the calculation of the converted total drug
   weight, i.e., that it erroneously included the weight of the drug packaging, the
   district court reduced the drug weight “across the board” by the “standard”
   10 percent. The probation officer indicated that the reduction did not change
   Derma-Dominguez’s total offense level.

                                          4
Case: 22-50787      Document: 00517016525          Page: 5    Date Filed: 12/29/2023

                                    No. 22-50787

          The district court adopted the PSR’s findings and application of the
   Guidelines and sentenced Derma-Dominguez to 108 months of
   imprisonment, followed by a five-year term of supervised release. Derma-
   Dominguez filed this appeal.
                                 II. DISCUSSION
          A. Application of the 3B1.1(c) Enhancement
          On appeal, Derma-Dominguez argues that the district court erred in
   applying the § 3B1.1(c) enhancement because he was not an organizer, leader,
   manager, or supervisor of the criminal activity. He also contends that but for
   the district court’s application of the enhancement, he would have been
   eligible for a safety valve adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(18), which
   would have resulted in a two-level decrease. The Government counters that
   the district court correctly applied the enhancement because Derma-
   Dominguez controlled the organization’s large drug load at a key point in the
   distribution chain and at the trailers in Odessa and Midland, and he also had
   a consistently escalating status and involvement within the organization. As
   we explain below, we agree with the Government for these and other reasons.
          Derma-Dominguez objected to the § 3B1.1(c) enhancement in the
   proceedings before the district court, so he has preserved the issue for appeal.
   See United States v. Fillmore, 889 F.3d 249, 252 (5th Cir. 2018). We review
   the district court’s findings concerning a defendant’s role in the offense for
   clear error. Id. at 255. The district court’s factual findings must be supported
   by a preponderance of the evidence. Id. “A factual finding that is plausible
   based on the record as a whole is not clearly erroneous.” United States v.
   Ochoa-Gomez, 777 F.3d 278, 282 (5th Cir. 2015).
          Section 3B1.1(c) of the Guidelines provides for a two-level
   enhancement “[i]f the defendant was an organizer, leader, manager, or
   supervisor in any criminal activity.” U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(c). “The application

                                          5
Case: 22-50787        Document: 00517016525             Page: 6      Date Filed: 12/29/2023

                                         No. 22-50787

   notes to section 3B1.1 require that the defendant either (1) exercised control
   over another participant in the offense, or (2) ‘exercised management
   responsibility over the property, assets, or activities of a criminal
   organization.’” United States v. Delgado, 672 F.3d 320, 345 (5th Cir. 2012)
   (en banc) (quoting § 3B1.1, comment. (n.2)); see also Ochoa-Gomez, 777 F.3d
   at 282–83. The commentary to § 3B1.1 provides a list of factors to consider
   when determining a defendant’s role in the offense, including “the exercise
   of decision making authority, the nature of participation in the commission
   of the offense, the recruitment of accomplices, the claimed right to a larger
   share of the fruits of the crime, the degree of participation in planning or
   organizing the offense, the nature and scope of the illegal activity, and the
   degree of control and authority exercised over others.” See U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1,
   comment. (n.4).
           In Delgado, this court sitting en banc recognized that Application Note
   2 provides an alternative basis for imposing the § 3B1.1(c) enhancement, i.e.,
   exercising management over the property, assets, or activities of a criminal
   organization, as opposed to exercising control over other participants in the
   offense. 1 672 F.3d at 345. In that case, law enforcement agents found
   marijuana in the cab of the defendant’s tractor-trailer, and an investigation
   showed that the defendant, who owned a trucking company, arranged for the
   transportation and delivery of the marijuana through her company, which
   involved falsifying bills of lading. Id. at 326–27, 345. The en banc court
   affirmed the application of the enhancement after concluding that the district

           _____________________
           1
              Application Note 2 provides that “[t]o qualify for an adjustment under this
   section, the defendant must have been the organizer, leader, manager, or supervisor of one
   or more other participants. An upward departure may be warranted, however, in the case
   of a defendant who did not organize, lead, manage, or supervise another participant, but
   who nevertheless exercised management responsibility over the property, assets, or
   activities of a criminal organization.” U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1, comment. (n.2).

                                               6
Case: 22-50787          Document: 00517016525                Page: 7   Date Filed: 12/29/2023

                                              No. 22-50787

   court did not clearly err in its determination that the defendant had exercised
   management responsibility over the property and activities of the drug
   trafficking ring. Id. at 345.
          This court has followed and applied Delgado’s interpretation of
   Application Note 2 in subsequent cases. See Ochoa-Gomez, 777 F.3d at 282–
   83 (“Our court, sitting en banc, has construed Note 2 to allow application of
   an adjustment, even where a defendant did not exercise control over another
   participant, if he exercised management responsibility over the property,
   assets, or activities of a criminal organization.” (emphasis in original)). In
   Ochoa-Gomez, the defendant facilitated and coordinated the transportation of
   drugs, negotiated the price of transporting the drugs, stored and packaged
   the drugs, and delivered the drugs to an undercover officer. Id. at 283. Citing
   Delgado and United States v. St. Junius, 2 a panel of this court affirmed the
   enhancement on the basis that the defendant played an integral role and
   exercised management responsibility over the property, assets, or activities
   of the criminal organization. Id. at 284.
          Additionally, other panels of this court have upheld the application of
   the enhancement when faced with similar factual scenarios. In St. Junius, 739
   F.3d at 208, this court again observed that the 3B1.1 enhancement “may be
   appropriate where ‘a defendant did not organize, lead, manage, or supervise
   another participant, but who nevertheless exercised management
   responsibility over the property, assets, or activities of a criminal
   organization.’” (quoting Delgado, 672 F.3d at 345). There, the panel upheld
   the enhancement on the grounds that the defendant, although not the actual
   leader, played a significant role in the functioning of the enterprise and
   profited more from it than any other participant other than the leader. Id. In

          _____________________
          2
              739 F.3d 193 (5th Cir. 2013).

                                                   7
Case: 22-50787      Document: 00517016525           Page: 8     Date Filed: 12/29/2023

                                     No. 22-50787

   affirming the enhancement the court noted that it was plausible in light of the
   record that the defendant “exercised some level of management
   responsibility over the property, assets, or activities” of the company
   through which the criminal enterprise was conducted. Id. at 209.
          Our unpublished cases have also followed suit. In United States v.
   Johnson, No. 22-30119, 2023 WL 2388358, at *2 (5th Cir. Mar. 7, 2023)
   (unpublished), this court affirmed the enhancement where evidence had
   been introduced showing that the defendant “supplied the street-level
   distributors with methamphetamine that he obtained from [his co-
   defendant]” and that his “position in the distribution chain gave him control
   over the other conspirators’ access to the drug.” Id. The panel concluded on
   those facts that the defendant exercised management responsibility over the
   property, assets, or activities of the criminal enterprise. Id.
          Similarly, in United States v. Abreu, No. 21-60861, 2023 WL 234766,
   at *3 (5th Cir. Jan. 18, 2023) (unpublished), a panel of this court affirmed the
   enhancement where the defendant’s “role as an organizer included arranging
   for transportation, counting cash, and providing items to process the
   cocaine.” In so doing, the panel noted that on those facts, “the district
   court’s finding that [the defendant] was an ‘organizer’ [was] ‘plausible in
   light of the record as a whole.’” Id. (quoting United States v. Rodriguez, 630
   F.3d 377, 380 (5th Cir. 2011)).
          Finally, in United States v. Johnson, No. 21-10454, 2022 WL 1773365,
   at *2–3 (5th Cir. June 1, 2022) (unpublished), a panel of this court affirmed
   the enhancement where the defendant purchased drugs from a larger dealer
   and then sold the drugs to other individuals. The panel reasoned that in
   purchasing and selling the drugs, the defendant “exercised control over the
   organization’s drug supply to some extent.” Id. at *2; see also United States v.
   Hernandez, 451 F. App’x 402, 404 (5th Cir. 2011) (unpublished) (affirming

                                           8
Case: 22-50787     Document: 00517016525           Page: 9   Date Filed: 12/29/2023

                                    No. 22-50787

   application of the § 3B1.1 enhancement under the clear error standard of
   review and explaining that “even if [the defendant’s] primary role was not as
   a supervisor of other participants, the record indicate[d] that he exercised
   managerial responsibility over the drugs and drug proceeds”).
          Here, although Derma-Dominguez argues that this court in Delgado
   misread Application Note 2 and that the application of the § 3B1.1
   enhancement “cannot be based solely on management of property, assets, or
   activities,” this court nevertheless remains bound by Delgado under the rule
   of orderliness. See United States v. Warren, 986 F.3d 557, 569 (5th Cir. 2021)
   (indicating disagreement with cases applying § 3B1.1 “based solely on
   management of property, assets or activities,” but acknowledging that the
   court was bound by those decisions under the rule of orderliness).
   Accordingly, under this circuit’s current controlling caselaw, a § 3B1.1
   enhancement may be based on either the defendant’s control over other
   people in the organization or his management of the organization’s property,
   assets, or activities. See Delgado, 672 F.3d at 345; Ochoa-Gomez, 777 F.3d at
   282–83.
          Given our controlling precedent in this area, we conclude that the
   district court did not clearly err in applying the enhancement on this record.
   Contrary to his arguments on appeal, Derma-Dominguez’s actions in this
   case are hardly distinguishable from those of the defendants in Delgado,
   Ochoa-Gomez, St. Junius, and this court’s unpublished opinions in Johnson
   (2023), Abreu, Johnson (2022), and Hernandez, all of whom were determined
   to have “exercised management responsibility over the property, assets, or
   activities of a criminal organization” under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1, thus warranting
   application of the enhancement. In those cases, the defendants often worked
   closely with the leader or head of the criminal enterprise, engaged in high-
   level and profitable transactions, and participated in multiple ways to assist
   in achieving the goals of the organization. Although Derma-Dominguez

                                         9
Case: 22-50787     Document: 00517016525            Page: 10   Date Filed: 12/29/2023

                                     No. 22-50787

   initially started off working less profitable jobs with lower-ranking members
   of the organization, he was quickly able to show that he was reliable and
   trustworthy by successfully completing several alien smuggling jobs.
   Thereafter, he swiftly advanced to higher-level and more profitable drug
   smuggling jobs and was soon promoted to working directly with the lead
   operator of the organization—Saul. During the span of several months, he
   transported numerous loads of drugs from Lajitas to Odessa. On the day of
   his arrest, he had traveled to Lajitas to retrieve a large load of marijuana that
   was intended to be dispersed to other individuals to distribute. When he was
   arrested, he had 202.5 kilograms (or approximately 450 pounds) of
   marijuana, 154 grams of methamphetamine, and two loaded AR-15
   magazines. He further stated that he “stayed,” or resided in, the stash
   trailers. His statement that he lived in the stash trailers was further
   corroborated when he gave agents permission to search the trailers in Odessa
   and Midland. He also admitted that the photos of the firearms and
   ammunition that agents had located on his cell phone were taken at the
   trailers where he lived.
          In sum, we conclude that Derma-Dominguez was more than a low-
   level drug courier. His actions in this case squarely conformed to the
   enhancement’s parameters as defined by the guidelines and this court’s
   reasoning in Delgado. 672 F.3d at 345 (explaining that a § 3B1.1 enhancement
   may be based on either control over people or management of assets).
   Likewise, this court’s precedent (both published and unpublished) supports
   application of the enhancement. See Ochoa-Gomez, 777 F.3d at 283–84; St.
   Junius, 739 F.3d at 208; Johnson, 2023 WL 2388358, at *2; Abreu, 2023 WL
   234766, at *3; Johnson, 2022 WL 1773365, at *2–3; Hernandez 451 F. App’x
   at 404. Consequently, we hold that the district court did not clearly err in
   applying the enhancement on this record. Fillmore, 889 F.3d at 255.
          B. Drug Weight Reduction

                                          10
Case: 22-50787      Document: 00517016525            Page: 11    Date Filed: 12/29/2023

                                      No. 22-50787

          Derma-Dominguez further argues that this court should vacate his
   sentence and remand to the district court for resentencing because the
   district court did not correctly recalculate his guidelines range of
   imprisonment after granting a 10 percent reduction in the converted drug
   weight due to the erroneous inclusion of the drug packaging. The
   Government agrees that this court should remand for resentencing on this
   basis. We also agree.
          The district court’s drug quantity calculation is a factual
   determination that this court ordinarily reviews for clear error. United States
   v. Lujan, 25 F.4th 324, 327–28 (5th Cir. 2022). However, because Derma-
   Dominguez did not raise the issue concerning the recalculation in the district
   court, our review is for plain error. See United States v. Kearby, 943 F.3d 969,
   975 (5th Cir. 2019). To establish plain error, Derma-Dominguez must
   demonstrate (1) an error (2) that is clear or obvious, rather than subject to
   reasonable dispute, and (3) that affected his substantial rights. See Puckett v.
   United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). If he does so, we may correct the
   error only if it “seriously affects the fairness, integrity or public reputation of
   judicial proceedings.” Id. (internal quotation marks, citation, and brackets
   omitted).
          Recall that at sentencing the district court reduced the total converted
   drug weight by 10 percent to account for the erroneous inclusion of the
   weight of the drug packaging. The probation officer initially determined that
   the converted drug weight attributable to Derma-Dominguez was 3,282.5
   kilograms, which gave Derma-Dominguez a base offense level of 32. This
   ultimately yielded a total offense level of 31 and a guidelines range of
   imprisonment of 108 to 135 months. But the district court’s reduction of the
   total converted drug weight by 10 percent reduced the converted drug weight
   by 328.25 kilograms to 2,954.25 kilograms. With this reduction, Derma-
   Dominguez’s new base offense level should have been 30, two levels less than

                                           11
Case: 22-50787     Document: 00517016525            Page: 12   Date Filed: 12/29/2023

                                     No. 22-50787

   his original base offense level. See U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c)(5). The district court,
   however, determined that his base offense level would not change following
   the 10 percent reduction. That conclusion was in error.
          With a base offense level of 30, the two-level § 3B1.1(c) enhancement,
   and the three-level decrease for acceptance of responsibility, Derma-
   Dominguez’s new total offense level would be 29, which would give him a
   guidelines range of imprisonment of 87 to 108 months. See U.S.S.G. Ch. 5,
   Pt. A. Derma-Dominguez was sentenced to 108 months of imprisonment,
   which reflects the lower end of the guidelines range for a total offense level
   of 31 and would be the higher end of the guidelines range for his new total
   offense level of 29. Accordingly, we exercise our discretion and vacate
   Derma-Dominguez’s sentence in part, on this sole issue, and remand for
   recalculation of his sentence to account for the new base offense level
   resulting from the 10 percent decrease of the total converted drug weight. See
   United States v. Randall, 924 F.3d 790, 801 (5th Cir. 2019) (remanding when
   “the appropriate remedy is re-sentencing, which can be accomplish[ed] fairly
   quickly and without extraordinary expense”); see also United States v. Blanco,
   27 F.4th 375, 381 (5th Cir. 2022) (reasoning that a “district court’s reliance
   on an incorrect Guidelines range will usually suffice to show an effect on the
   defendant’s substantial rights where the record is silent as to what the district
   court might have done had it considered the correct Guidelines range”
   (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)); Molina-Martinez v. United
   States, 578 U.S. 189, 198 (2016) (“When a defendant is sentenced under an
   incorrect Guidelines range—whether or not the defendant’s ultimate
   sentence falls within the correct range—the error itself can, and most often
   will, be sufficient to show a reasonable probability of a different outcome
   absent the error.”).
                                III. CONCLUSION

                                          12
Case: 22-50787   Document: 00517016525        Page: 13   Date Filed: 12/29/2023

                               No. 22-50787

         For the aforementioned reasons, Derma-Dominguez’s sentence is
   AFFIRMED in part and VACATED and REMANDED in part.

                                    13
Case: 22-50787        Document: 00517016525               Page: 14       Date Filed: 12/29/2023

                                          No. 22-50787

   James L. Dennis, Circuit Judge, concurring in part, dissenting in part:
           I concur fully in Part II.B of the majority opinion, which remands for
   resentencing because the district court did not correctly recalculate Derma-
   Dominguez’s offense level and guidelines range of imprisonment after
   granting a 10 percent packaging reduction in relation to the converted drug
   weight. However, I respectfully dissent from the majority’s conclusion in
   Part II.A that Derma-Dominguez warrants the enhancement under
   U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(c) for being “an organizer, leader, manager, or supervisor”
   in the drug smuggling operation. Because the record contains no evidence
   that Derma-Dominguez had management responsibility over the property,
   assets, or activities of a criminal organization, the district court clearly erred
   in applying the enhancement.
           Section 3B1.1(c) provides for a two-level enhancement “[i]f the
   defendant was an organizer, leader, manager, or supervisor in any criminal
   activity.” Because Derma-Dominguez objected to the enhancement in the
   district court, we review the district court’s finding as to his role in the
   offense for clear error. United States v. Fillmore, 889 F.3d 249, 255 (5th Cir.
   2018). As the majority notes, under our precedent and based on application
   note 2 to § 3B1.1, a defendant’s conduct may warrant application of §
   3B1.1(c) not only if he exercised control over another participant in the
   offense, but also if he “exercised management responsibility over the
   property, assets, or activities of a criminal organization.” United States v.
   Delgado, 672 F.3d 320, 345 (5th Cir. 2012) (en banc) (quoting § 3B1.1 cmt.
   n.2); see also United States v. Ochoa-Gomez, 777 F.3d 278, 282 (5th Cir. 2015). 1
           _____________________
           1
             While Derma-Dominguez persuasively argues that this court in Delgado misread
   application note 2 in holding that application of the § 3B1.1 enhancement can be based
   solely on management of property, assets, or activities, I agree with the majority that, under
   our rule of orderliness, we remain bound by Delgado’s holding that either the defendant’s
   control over other people in the organization or his management of the organization’s

                                                14
Case: 22-50787       Document: 00517016525             Page: 15      Date Filed: 12/29/2023

                                        No. 22-50787

   Factors to consider when determining a defendant’s role in the offense
   include:
          the exercise of decision making authority, the nature of
          participation in the commission of the offense, the recruitment
          of accomplices, the claimed right to a larger share of the fruits
          of the crime, the degree of participation in planning or
          organizing the offense, the nature and scope of the illegal
          activity, and the degree of control and authority exercised over
          others.
   § 3B1.1 cmt. n.4.
          The plain text of application note 2 requires “management
   responsibility” over the property, assets, or activities of a criminal
   organization. § 3B1.1 cmt. n.2 (emphasis added). Accordingly, in each of our
   cases affirming application of the enhancement, the defendants went beyond
   mere physical control of contraband; instead, they were involved in some way
   in planning or decision-making regarding control of the contraband—e.g.,
   arranging for transportation or delivery of contraband, owning or presenting
   as the owner of the organization, or distributing contraband to lower-level
   members. See, e.g., Delgado, 672 F.3d at 345 (affirming when the defendant,
   who owned a trucking company, arranged for the transportation and delivery
   of the marijuana through her company, which involved falsifying bills of
   lading); Ochoa-Gomez, 777 F.3d at 283-84, (affirming when the defendant
   coordinated the transportation of drugs, negotiated the price of transporting
   the drugs, stored and packaged the drugs, and delivered drugs to an
   undercover officer); United States v. Junius, 739 F.3d 193, 208 (5th Cir. 2013)
   (affirming when the defendant, who profited the most from the scheme, led

          _____________________
   property, assets, or activities warrants application of § 3B1.1(c). See United States v.
   Warren, 986 F.3d 557, 569 (5th Cir. 2021).

                                             15
Case: 22-50787       Document: 00517016525         Page: 16   Date Filed: 12/29/2023

                                    No. 22-50787

   others to believe she was the owner of the business involved in a Medicare
   fraud scheme, signed Medicare documents, signed and issued paychecks,
   and sent correspondence as the owner of the business); United States v.
   Johnson, No. 22-30119, 2023 WL 2388358, at *2 (5th Cir. Mar. 7, 2023)
   (unpublished) (affirming when defendant supplied the street-level
   distributors with methamphetamine that he obtained from his co-defendant
   and in that way controlled the other conspirators’ access to the drug); United
   States v. Johnson, No. 21-10454, 2022 WL 1773365, at *3 (5th Cir. June 1,
   2022) (unpublished) (affirming when the defendant purchased drugs from a
   larger dealer and then sold those drugs to individuals, showing he exercised
   control over the organization’s drug supply to some extent); United States v.
   Abreu, No. 21-60861, 2023 WL 234766, at *3 (5th Cir. Jan. 18, 2023)
   (unpublished) (affirming when the defendant’s arranged for transportation,
   counted cash, and provided items to process the cocaine); United States v.
   Hernandez, 451 F. App’x 402, 404 (5th Cir. 2011) (unpublished) (affirming
   when the defendant exercised managerial responsibility over the drugs and
   drug proceeds).
          Here, the evidence shows only that Derma-Dominguez transported
   marijuana at the order of others and had no decision-making control over the
   drugs. Derma-Dominguez took orders from Bolitas and then later Saul after
   successfully completing a few jobs. Every fifteen days Derma-Dominguez
   would pick up cargo in Lajitas, Texas, and transport it to Bolitas’s stash RV
   in Odessa, Texas. On the day of his arrest, Derma-Dominguez followed this
   usual scenario. He travelled from Odessa to Lajitas and picked up the
   marijuana. He then drove to Presidio, Texas, to wait for orders from Saul.
   After Saul told him the border checkpoint was closed and gave him the okay,
   Derma-Dominguez attempted to proceed to Odessa but was apprehended.
          Looking to the factors in the § 3B.1.1 commentary, the evidence does
   not show any “decision making authority,” participation in “planning or

                                         16
Case: 22-50787     Document: 00517016525           Page: 17    Date Filed: 12/29/2023

                                    No. 22-50787

   organizing the offense,” or “control and authority exercised over others.” §
   3B1.1 cmt. n.4. Further, Derma-Dominguez did not participate in
   “recruitment of accomplices” or “claim[] right to a larger share of the fruits
   of the crime.” Id. When considering “the nature of participation in the
   commission of the offense” and “the nature and scope of the illegal activity,”
   while Saul trusted Derma-Dominguez to successfully transport the
   marijuana, the most the evidence shows is that Derma-Dominguez was a
   good drug runner, moving marijuana as ordered by higher-ups. Id. While
   Derma-Dominguez had some responsibility to move these assets (as every
   drug runner does), it was not management responsibility. See § 3B1.1 cmt. n.2.
          Although the majority states that Derma-Dominguez “traveled to
   Lajitas to retrieve a large load of marijuana that was intended to be dispersed
   to other individuals to distribute,” there is no evidence that he was involved
   in any aspect of the operation, including distribution, beyond transporting the
   drugs from Lajitas to Odessa. The majority also states that Derma-
   Dominguez “stayed, or resided in, the stash trailers” in Odessa, showing
   some management authority, but that fact is neither stated in the evidence
   nor was it found by the district court. As the Presentence Investigation
   Report (PSR) puts it, there was a “stash RV trailer in Odessa, Texas which
   [wa]s run by an individual named ‘Bolitas,’” and a paragraph later on the
   next page, “Derma-Dominguez described to agents two trailers in Odessa
   and Midland, Texas where he was staying.” It was these latter two trailers
   which the PSR says Derma-Dominguez “gave agents written consent to
   search.” While the stash trailer and one of Derma-Dominguez’s living
   trailers were both in Odessa, the PSR does not state they were the same, and
   in fact, the PSR states Bolitas (not Derma-Dominguez) ran the stash trailer.
   The officer who testified at the sentencing did not elaborate on the trailers or
   state that any contraband was found during the search of Derma-
   Dominguez’s trailer. There may be two different trailers in Odessa, and the

                                          17
Case: 22-50787     Document: 00517016525           Page: 18   Date Filed: 12/29/2023

                                    No. 22-50787

   district court did not make a finding that the two trailers were the same. As a
   court of review, we cannot find such facts in the first instance. Cf. Bay Sound
   Tranps. Co. v. United States, 410 F.2d 505, 512 (5th Cir. 1969) (“[T]he
   District Court [must] determine the essential facts upon which it bases its
   judgment; where the trial Court fails to do so, this Court cannot make such
   findings of fact.”).
          “A factual finding is clearly erroneous if it is unsupported by the
   record or creates the firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” Citizens
   for a Better Gretna v. City of Gretna, 834 F.2d 496, 498 n.4 (5th Cir. 1987)
   (citing United States v. U.S. Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395, (1948)). The
   record shows Derma-Dominguez only transported marijuana at the order of
   others and exercised no managerial control over the drugs. Not once does the
   evidence state he made an independent decision or exercised control over the
   operation’s plan. The Guidelines permit an enhancement only for
   “management responsibility” over the property, assets, or activities of a
   criminal organization, but the majority affirms on the handling of drugs alone.
   § 3B1.1 cmt. n.2 (emphasis added). Not every drug runner is a manager—to
   think as much would be absurd—but the majority’s reasoning dangerously
   opens the door to such an outcome. Because the record lacks any evidence
   that Derma-Dominguez had management responsibility over the drugs in this
   case, the district court’s finding to the contrary is clearly erroneous. See
   Citizens for a Better Gretna, 834 F.2d at 498 n.4.
          I respectfully dissent.

                                         18