Court Opinion

ID: 9835142
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-02 02:08:16.592849+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:44:58.419068
License: Public Domain

COLLOTON, Circuit Judge,
concurring.
The district court found that appellant Daniel Musa was an organizer or leader of criminal activity that was “otherwise extensive.” See USSG § 3Bl.l(a). I concur in the opinion of the court remanding for clarification because it holds only that the district court did not make an adequate finding about whether Musa organized or led another participant in the criminal activity. See id. comment, (n.2). The government argues on appeal that the adjustment was appropriate because the district court adopted facts in the presentence report establishing that Musa’s wife and children were participants in criminal activity organized or led by Musa. The court’s opinion does not address the sufficiency of this evidence; it holds only that the district court did not make the required finding that Musa organized or led another participant. The government also argues that the judgment could be affirmed on the alternative ground that Musa’s criminal activity involved at least five criminally responsible participants. The district court made no finding on this issue, and the opinion does not address it. Ante, at 789 n. 1. The opinion also does not address whether the record would support an upward departure or variance from the advisory guideline range if Musa did not organize or lead another participant. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1); USSG § 3B1.1, comment. (n.2). On these understandings, I concur.