Court Opinion

ID: 2964165
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:21:38.69551+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:42:52.012777
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                 ____________________

        No. 95-2271

                                    UNITED STATES,

                                      Appellee,

                                          v.

                                   PHILIP M. CALI,

                                Defendant, Appellant.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

                     [Hon. Robert E. Keeton, U.S. District Judge]
                                             ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                 Lynch, Circuit Judge,
                                        _____________
                      Aldrich and Bownes, Senior Circuit Judges.
                                          _____________________

                                 ____________________

            John P. Ward with whom David  Duncan and Zalkind, Rodriguez,  Lunt
            ____________           _____________     _________________________
        & Duncan were on brief for appellant.
        ________
            Brian  T.  Kelly, Assistant  United  States  Attorney,  with  whom
            ________________
        Donald K. Stern, United States Attorney, were on brief for appellee.
        _______________

                                 ____________________
                                    June 25, 1996
                                 ____________________

                      BOWNES,  Senior Circuit  Judge.   On June  1, 1995,
                      BOWNES,  Senior Circuit  Judge.
                               _____________________

            defendant-appellant Philip Cali ("Cali") pled guilty to count

            sixty-nine  of a  seventy-one  count indictment  charging him

            with operating  an illegal gambling business  in violation of

            18 U.S.C.     1955, 2.   Cali now  appeals the  fifteen-month

            sentence  of imprisonment  he received,  contending that  the

            district  court  enhanced the  prison  term  mandated by  the

            Sentencing Guidelines ("Guidelines") because of the erroneous

            view  that U.S.S.G.     3B1.1 permits  a  base offense  level

            adjustment  for mere management of assets or property.   Cali

            also  maintains that the district court's alternative holding

            that  upward departure  was appropriate  because  his conduct

            fell outside section 3B1.1's heartland was clearly erroneous.

            We agree that mere management of assets is insufficient for a

            base offense  level adjustment under section  3B1.1, but find

            that the district court's alternative determination cures any

            defect in its holding.  Accordingly, we affirm.  Jurisdiction

            stems from 18 U.S.C.   3742.

                                          I.
                                          I.

                                      THE FACTS
                                      THE FACTS
                                      _________

                      We  consider   the  facts  as  set   forth  in  the

            unobjected-to  portions  of  the   Presentence  Investigation

            Report ("PSI") and the  transcript of the sentencing hearing.

            See, e.g., United States v.  Peppe, 80 F.3d 19, 20  (1st Cir.
            ___  ____  _______________________

            1996); United States  v. Grandmaison, 77  F.3d 555, 557  (1st
                   _____________________________

                                         -2-
                                          2

            Cir.  1996).  On October  15, 1993, Philip  Cali was arrested

            pursuant   to  count  sixty-nine   of  a   seventy-one  count

            indictment charging him with conducting, financing, managing,

            supervising, directing, and owning all or part of an  illegal

            gambling business which involved five or more persons between

            October 1986 and December 1992.  The  result of an eight year

            Massachusetts  State  Police  ("State Police")  investigation

            into  large-scale  racketeering conspiracies,  the indictment

            named  nine  individuals,  four  of whom  --  Joseph  Yerardi

            ("Yerardi"), William Maguire ("Maguire"), Anthony Grabiec Jr.

            ("Grabiec"), and Salvatore M. DeAngelis ("DeAngelis") -- were

            charged in count sixty-nine  with Cali.  Cali, who  is sixty-

            five and  has a  criminal history which  includes convictions

            for gambling-related  activities, was  not charged in  any of

            the indictment's other counts.

                      During   the   course    of   their    racketeering

            investigation, the  State  Police obtained  authorization  to

            intercept  phone  conversations  over  a  cellular  telephone

            utilized  by  Yerardi  from  June  to  August  1991.    Their

            surveillance of the telephone  revealed that Yerardi presided

            over  extensive loansharking  and gambling  businesses.   The

            gambling  business,  which  operated  under the  auspices  of

            Boston's Winter  Hill Gang and generated  funds for Yerardi's

            loansharking business, included  over twenty-five  bookmaking

            agents, two principal  offices, and had a gross daily revenue

                                         -3-
                                          3

            of $2,000.00.  Though Yerardi headed the gambling enterprise,

            Maguire  was  its  principal  supervisor  and the  individual

            responsible for collecting money owed to the organization and

            paying out money owed to agents and bettors.

                      Transcripts  of numerous calls  between Yerardi and

            Cali  intercepted by the State Police  revealed that Cali and

            DeAngelis played  the same  role in the  gambling enterprise,

            though  they  operated out  of  different  locations. Yerardi

            stationed Cali, who frequently  placed bets with the business

            and  was often one of  its debtors, at  one of the business's

            principal  bookmaking  offices  to  receive  calls  from  the

            various  agents.   The agents,  who identified  themselves by

            code only and received a percentage of the business's profits

            as  compensation,  communicated  information  about  sporting

            event  bets  to  Cali.    After  taking  and  recording  that

            information,  Cali transmitted it  directly to  Yerardi, with

            whom he was in daily telephone contact.   The majority of the

            calls intercepted by the State Police were made by Yerardi to

            Cali at the bookmaking office.

                      Cali  often  reviewed  betting  results   with  and

            reported agents' makeup figures --  those monies that have to

            be worked off before any money can be paid out  -- to Yerardi

            during these  telephone conversations.   He also  assisted in

            charting bets  for the gambling business.   Charting involves

            tracking  daily  bets  made  by  agents  and  monitoring  the

                                         -4-
                                          4

            business's   projected  risk of  loss on  individual sporting

            events.   Though Cali  answered directly to  Yerardi and  was

            responsible  for completing  charting  analyses, there  is no

            evidence  that he  received  a percentage  of the  business's

            profit or played any role in setting policy regarding odds or

            bet placement.

                      On June 1, 1995,  Cali pled guilty to participating

            in  the  operation  of  an illegal  gambling  business.   The

            district  court  scheduled  a  sentencing  hearing and  prior

            thereto received a  PSI from the  Probation Department.   The

            PSI prepared by  the Probation Department, to which  both the

            government  and  Cali  registered objections,  recommended  a

            total  adjusted  guideline  offense   level  of  ten.    This

            recommendation  reflects a  two  level decrease  in the  base

            offense for  acceptance of  responsibility.  See  U.S.S.G.   
                                                         ___

            2E3.1(a); 3E1.1.  The PSI concluded, based on the information

            provided by the government and the defendant's description of

            his duties that an  adjustment for role in the  offense would

            not be warranted.  

                      The  Probation  Department   assigned  Cali   three

            criminal history  points for prior gambling  convictions and,

            as a result, placed him in Criminal History Category II.  The

            district  court,  however,  later  found  that the  Probation

            Department  had erroneously  assigned  Cali criminal  history

            points for  offenses committed while working  for Yerardi and

                                         -5-
                                          5

            identified the appropriate  criminal history  category as  I.

            Placement in Criminal History Category I, at a total adjusted

            offense level of ten, results in a sentencing range of six to

            twelve months.               II.
                                         II.

                                THE SENTENCING HEARING
                                THE SENTENCING HEARING
                                ______________________

                      At  the  sentencing  hearing,    Cali  requested  a

            downward departure on the  grounds that both he and  his wife

            suffered,  inter  alia,  from  serious heart  conditions  and
                       _____  ____

            largely  supported  themselves   on  Social  Security  income

            benefits that would  be unavailable  to them  for any  period

            that  Cali was  incarcerated.   The  government disputed  the

            contention that Cali was entitled  to departure on this basis

            and objected  to the  two-point adjustment for  acceptance of

            responsibility  recommended  by  the   Probation  Department.

            Additionally, the government objected to the PSI's failure to

            add four levels under  section 3B1.1(a) for supervisory role,

            arguing  that  an  enhancement  was  warranted  because  Cali

            managed  people and  assets within that  guideline's meaning.

            The government also argued that the Criminal History Category

            I  assignment Cali  received did  not adequately  reflect the

            seriousness of his past criminal history.  

                      The   district  court  denied  the  objections  and

            requests  made by both Cali  and the government.   It refused

            Cali's  request for  a  health-related departure,  concluding

            that the factors cited by the defense did not, "separately or

                                         -6-
                                          6

            together,  justify  departure."     It   also  rejected   the

            government's  objection  to  the  two-point   adjustment  for

            acceptance   of  responsibility   recommended  by   the  PSI.

            Finally, the court found that the severity of Cali's criminal

            history  was  not  underrepresented by  the  amended criminal

            history calculation and denied the government's request for a

            four-level adjustment under section 3B1.1(a).  

                      Nevertheless, the court  found that Cali's role  in

            Yerardi's gambling  enterprise warranted some  enhancement in

            his  sentence and  concluded, over  Cali's objection,  that a

            three level  increase in  the offense level  was appropriate.

            It found that section 3B1.1(b)  and Application Note 2's role

            in the  offense provisions  permitted  him to  make a  direct

            adjustment  to Cali's  base  offense level,  but added  that,

            should  this  Court determine  that  section  3B1.1 does  not

            permit  such  an  adjustment,   it  would  employ  an  upward

            departure, under United States v.  Rivera, 994 F.2d 942  (1st
                             ________________________

            Cir. 1993), to impose a sentence outside the range prescribed

            by the Guidelines to  reach the same final sentence.   Either

            calculus  results  in  a  total  adjusted  offense  level  of

            thirteen, which  corresponds to a sentencing  range of twelve

            to eighteen months.

                      Accordingly, the court sentenced Cali to a fifteen-

            month  term  of  imprisonment  and two  years  of  supervised

            release.  It  assessed Cali $50.00,  as required by  statute,

                                         -7-
                                          7

            and  imposed a fine of $3,000.00, without interest.  In light

            of   Cali's  medical   problems,  the   court  also   made  a

            recommendation that Cali be placed in a facility, as close to

            Massachusetts as possible,  where adequate medical  treatment

            would be available to him.            

                                         III.
                                         III.

                                  STANDARD OF REVIEW
                                  STANDARD OF REVIEW
                                  __________________

                      Appellate review of a district  court's application

            of  the Guidelines is a  two-part process.   United States v.
                                                         ________________

            Joyce, 70 F.3d 679, 681 (1st Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 116 S.
            _____                                    _____ ______

            Ct. 1556 (1996).  We first determine the applicability of the

            guideline to a  particular case  de novo.   United States  v.
                                             __ ____    _________________

            McCarthy,  77 F.3d 522, 535 (1st Cir. 1996); United States v.
            ________                                     ________________

            St.   Cyr,  977  F.2d  698,  701  (1st  Cir.  1992).    After
            _________

            determining the guideline's scope  and meaning, we review the

            district  court's factual  determinations  for  clear  error,

            "giv[ing] due  deference to the  district court's application

            of the guidelines to the facts."   Joyce, 70 F.3d at 681; see
                                               _____                  ___

            also Koon v.  United States, Nos.  94-1644, 94-8842, 1996  WL
            ____ ______________________

            315800 at * 8 (U.S. June 13, 1996); McCarthy, 77 F.3d at 535;
                                                ________

            St.  Cyr, 977 F.2d at 701.  Because "[t]he determination of a
            ________

            defendant's role  in an offense is  fact-specific," Joyce, 70
                                                                _____

            F.3d  at  682, we  will  only  disturb the  district  court's

            findings   regarding  Cali's   role  in   Yerardi's  gambling

            enterprise if  they  are  clearly erroneous  or  based  on  a

                                         -8-
                                          8

            mistake  of law.  See  United States v.  Frankhauser, 80 F.3d
                              ___  _____________________________

            641, 653 (1st Cir.  1996); United States v. Rostoff,  53 F.3d
                                       ________________________

            398, 413 (1st Cir. 1995); United States v. Tejada-Beltran, 50
                                      _______________________________

            F.3d 105, 110-11 (1st Cir. 1995).

                                         IV.
                                         IV.

                                      DISCUSSION
                                      DISCUSSION
                                      __________

                      The  small,  but   nevertheless  real,   difference

            between a twelve and fifteen month prison  term is ultimately

            what is  at stake in this  appeal.  Cali contends  that he is

            entitled to a reduction in his fifteen-month sentence because

            twelve months  is  the maximum  prison  term he  should  have

            received  under  the Guidelines.    In  support of  this,  he

            maintains that the district  court erroneously concluded that

            section 3B1.1(b) permits a  base offense level enhancement in

            the absence  of a finding  that a defendant  organized, lead,

            managed, or supervised one or more participants in an illegal

            enterprise    involving    five    or   more    participants.

            Additionally,  Cali  argues   that  the  court's  alternative

            holding -- that  an upward departure  was appropriate in  the

            event  section  3B1.1  precluded adjustment  --  was  clearly

            erroneous  because  his  conduct falls  squarely  within  the

            heartland  of 18  U.S.C.     1955 offenses.      We begin  by

            reviewing the claim  that, absent a finding  that a defendant

            managed  individuals,   U.S.S.G.     3B1.1(b)   precludes  an

                                         -9-
                                          9

            enhancement  in  the  base  offense  level  and  discuss  the

            requirements for a   3B1.1 upward departure thereafter.

                 U.S.S.G.   3B1.1(b) Role in the Offense Adjustments
                 U.S.S.G.   3B1.1(b) Role in the Offense Adjustments
                 ___________________________________________________

                      U.S.S.G.   3B1.1 punishes defendants in large-scale

            criminal    enterprises    according   to    their   relative

            responsibility,  meting  out  the most  severe  sentences  to

            individuals  who hold  leadership  or  management  positions.

            Tejada-Beltran,  50 F.3d at  111; United States  v. Fones, 51
            ______________                    _______________________

            F.3d  663, 665 (7th Cir. 1995); United States v. Parmelee, 42
                                            _________________________

            F.3d  387, 395 (7th Cir. 1994), cert. denied sub nom. Brozek-
                                            _____ ______ ___ ____ _______

            Lukaszuk, 116 S. Ct. 63 (1995).  The district court used this
            ________

            guideline  to  elevate Cali's  sentence  on  the theory  that

            section 3B1.1(b) permits an enhancement in a defendant's base

            offense level for both  management of individuals and assets.

            Cali assigns  error, contending  that an enhancement  in base

            offense  level  can  only be  based  on  a  finding that  the

            defendant managed other individuals.  The government concedes

            this  point,  but  maintains  that Cali's  argument  is  moot

            because the district court found that Cali's responsibilities

            in Yerardi's gambling business included managing individuals,

            as well as assets.

                      To make sense of these positions, we briefly review

            section 3B1.1 and its history.  Section 3B1.1 provides:

                      Based  on  the  defendant's role  in  the
                      offense,  increase  the offense  level as
                      follows:

                                         -10-
                                          10

                      (a)  If the defendant was an organizer or
                      leader  of  a   criminal  activity   that
                      involved five or more participants or was
                      otherwise   extensive,   increase  by   4
                      levels.
                      (b)  If  the defendant  was a  manager or
                      supervisor  (but  not  an   organizer  or
                      leader)   and   the   criminal   activity
                      involved five or more participants or was
                      otherwise   extensive,   increase  by   3
                      levels.
                      (c)  If the defendant  was an  organizer,
                      leader,  manager,  or  supervisor in  any
                      criminal activity other than described in
                      (a) or (b), increase by 2 levels.

            Prior to 1993, courts were split as to whether a finding that

            a  criminal-enterprise  defendant managed  individuals  was a

            prerequisite  to   a  section   3B1.1   base  offense   level

            adjustment.   See United States  v. McFarlane, 64  F.3d 1235,
                          ___ ___________________________

            1237 (8th Cir. 1995).   This Circuit took the view  that "the

            defendant  must have  exercised some  degree of  control over

            others involved in  the commission of  the offense or  . .  .

            must  have been  responsible  for organizing  others for  the

            purpose of carrying out the crime."  United States v. Fuller,
                                                 _______________________

            897 F.2d 1217, 1220  (1st Cir. 1990); see also  United States
                                                  ___ ____  _____________

            v.  Fuentes, 954 F.2d 151,  153 (3d Cir.),  cert. denied, 504
            ___________                                 _____ ______

            U.S. 977 (1992); United States v. Mares-Molina, 913 F.2d 770,
                             _____________________________

            773  (9th  Cir.  1990).    Other  courts  concluded  that  "a

            defendant who did not  supervise people [could] be considered

            a manager  or supervisor within  the meaning of    3B1.1(b)."

            United States  v. Chambers, 985  F.2d 1263, 1267  (4th Cir.),
            __________________________

                                         -11-
                                          11

            cert. denied, 114 S.  Ct. 107 (1993); see also  United States
            _____ ______                          ___ ____  _____________

            v. Grady, 972 F.2d 889 (8th Cir. 1992).
            ________

                      On  November  1,  1993, the  Sentencing  Commission

            ("Commission")  weighed into this debate by issuing Amendment

            500, which amended section  3B1.1 to include Application Note

            2.  That application note provides:  

                      To qualify for  an adjustment under  this
                      section,  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.

            Thus, Amendment 500 offered something to courts on both sides

            of the  section 3B1.1 debate.   It  made it clear,  in accord

            with  the position we embraced  in Fuller, 897  F.2d at 1220,
                                               ______

            that section  3B1.1  adjustments are  unavailable unless  the

            record  shows   that  the  defendant  managed   one  or  more

            individuals, but  also states that a finding that a defendant

            managed assets instead  of individuals could  be a basis  for

            upward departure.  Ironically, this attempt to define section

            3B1.1's contours and operation created the dispute which lies

            at the heart of this appeal.  

                      Application  Note  2  explains  that  section 3B1.1

            adjustments   and   departures   require  different   factual

            findings,  but does not clarify how, if at all, these devices

                                         -12-
                                          12

            differ in  terms of the sentencing  calculation they mandate.

            At  the sentencing  hearing, Cali  argued that  section 3B1.1

            adjustments involve  enhancements in the  base offense level,

            whereas  section 3B1.1 departures involve enhancements in the

            total adjusted offense level and must adhere to the framework

            for  Guidelines departures  established  by  this Circuit  in

            Rivera,  994 F.2d  at 942.   The  district court  agreed that
            ______

            section  3B1.1   adjustments   effectuate  increases   in   a

            defendant's base  offense level.  See, e.g., United States v.
                                              ___  ____  ________________

            Capers, 61 F.3d 1100, 1109 (4th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, No.
            ______                                      _____ ______

            95-7022, 1995 WL 752222  (U.S. May 20, 1996); Fones,  51 F.3d
                                                          _____

            at  669-70;  McFarlane,  64 F.3d  at  1239-40.    It was  not
                         _________

            persuaded,  however, that  the Commission  intended to  limit

            section  3B1.1 departures  to changes  in the  total adjusted

            offense level:

                      THE COURT:  My primary view of the matter
                      . . . is that the appropriate way to read
                      these  guidelines  is   that  that   word
                      "departure" in Application Note 2 was not
                      being  used in  the technical sense  of a
                      kind  of departure that  is controlled by
                      Rivera, by  the decision-making structure
                      ______
                      controlled  by  Rivera.     Instead  it's
                                      ______
                      talking about a calculation of  the total
                      offense level. 

            The court reasoned that had the Commission  intended the term

            "departure"  to  have the  same meaning  in  the role  in the

            offense context as  it does elsewhere  in the Guidelines,  it

            would  have  discussed  role  in the  offense  departures  in

            Chapter 5,  Part K,  of the  Guidelines, which  is explicitly

                                         -13-
                                          13

            devoted  to departures, and not  in Chapter 3,  Part B, which

            primarily  deals with  base offense  level adjustments.   See
                                                                      ___

            U.S.S.G. Chap. 3, Part B, Introductory Commentary ("This part

            provides adjustments to the offense level based upon the role

            the  defendant  played in  committing  the  offense.").   The

            district  court,  therefore,  held that  both  section  3B1.1

            adjustments and departures affect base offense level. 

                      This  was  error.    We  cannot  agree,  given  the

            circumstances  surrounding  the Commission's  promulgation of

            Application  Note 2, that the sentence-calculation difference

            between  section 3B1.1 adjustments  and departures "is  . . .

            inconsequential."   See McFarlane, 64  F.3d at 1239.   Simply
                                ___ _________

            because  role-in-the-offense  departures  are   discussed  in

            Chapter  3, Part  B, instead  of Chapter  5, Part  K, is  not

            persuasive  evidence  of an  intent  to  treat section  3B1.1

            adjustments and departures the same for  sentence calculation

            purposes.  See Rivera, 994 F.2d at  948 ("Specific individual
                       ___ ______

            guidelines may also encourage departures.").  The language of

            Application  Note 2 persuades us that the two devices are, in

            fact, different: section 3B1.1  adjustments are mandatory and

            subject to  the tripartite  test set  out by  that guideline,

            whereas  departures  made  pursuant  to  that  guideline  are

            discretionary.   As  the Eighth  Circuit explained  in United
                                                                   ______

            States v. McFarlane, 64 F.3d 1235, 1239 (8th Cir. 1995):
            ___________________

                      If  the sentencing court concludes that a
                      defendant has managed  or supervised  one

                                         -14-
                                          14

                      or  more  participants   in  a   criminal
                      enterprise involving five  or more  total
                      participants, an adjustment is mandated -
                      -  the court must enhance the defendant's
                      sentence  by three  levels.   If,  on the
                      other   hand,    the   sentencing   court
                      concludes that the  defendant has  merely
                      exercised  a  managerial  role  over  the
                      property,  assets,  or  activities  of  a
                      criminal  enterprise  involving  five  or
                      more participants, the court is possessed
                      of   a   certain  degree   of  discretion
                      regarding   the    enhancement   of   the
                      defendant's  sentence   --  "[a]n  upward
                      departure may be warranted."  

                      We hold that section 3B1.1(b) and  Application Note

            2  preclude "management responsibility over property, assets,

            or   activities  as  the  basis"  for  an  enhancement  to  a

            defendant's  base  offense  level.    See  United  States  v.
                                                  ___  __________________

            Greenfield, 44 F.3d 1141,  1146 (2d Cir. 1995).   Because the
            __________

            government contends that the  factual predicate for a section

            3B1.1(b)  adjustment   exists  in   this  case,  we   do  not

            immediately decide  the  question of  whether  section  3B1.1

            departures  must  be  analyzed  under  the  Rivera framework.
                                                        ______

            Instead, we  focus on whether  the district court  found that

            Cali managed one or more individuals in a criminal enterprise

            involving  five or more participants and, if so, whether that

            finding was  clearly erroneous.  See  Tejada-Beltran, 50 F.3d
                                             ___  ______________

            at 110.  

                      Section  3B1.1(b)  only  applies  where  the record

            shows  that a defendant operated as  a "manager or supervisor

            and the criminal activity  involved five or more participants

                                         -15-
                                          15

            or was otherwise  extensive."  U.S.S.G.    3B1.1(b).   Though

            the  Guidelines provide a list  of seven factors  -- which is

            neither exhaustive nor  imbued with "talismanic significance"

            -- to assist courts in determining whether a defendant  acted

            as  a  leader or  organizer  within  the meaning  of  section

            3B1.1(a), United States v. Talladino, 38 F.3d 1255, 1260 (1st
                      __________________________

            Cir.  1994); see also Joyce,  70 F.3d at 683; Tejada-Beltran,
                         ___ ____ _____                   ______________

            50 F.3d at 111; U.S.S.G.   3B1.1, Application Note 4, they do

            not define "[t]he terms  'manager' and 'supervisor'."  Joyce,
                                                                   _____

            70  F.3d at 682.  In the  past, we have required some "degree

            of  control  or  organizational  authority  over  others"  to

            support a section  3B1.1(b) adjustment.  Fuller,  897 F.2d at
                                                     ______

            1220.    Immediate or  direct  control  over subordinates  or

            partners, while certainly an important factor to consider, is

            not, however, a prerequisite to finding a defendant deserving

            of added culpability or punishment.  See Frankhauser, 80 F.3d
                                                 ___ ___________

            at 654;  Tejada-Beltran,  50 F.3d  at 112;  United States  v.
                     ______________                     _________________

            Payne, 63 F.3d 1200,  1212 (2d Cir. 1995), cert.  denied, 116
            _____                                      _____  ______

            S.  Ct.   1056  (1996);  Greenfield,  44   F.3d  at  1146-47.
                                     __________

            "Managerial   status  [generally]  attach[es]   if  there  is

            evidence that a defendant, in committing the crime, exercised

            control over, or was otherwise responsible for overseeing the

            activities  of, at least one other person."  United States v.
                                                         ________________

            Savoie,  985 F.2d 612, 616  (1st Cir. 1993);  see also United
            ______                                        ___ ____ ______

            States  v. Munoz, 36 F.3d  1229, 1240 (1st  Cir. 1994), cert.
            ________________                                        _____

                                         -16-
                                          16

            denied  sub nom. Martinez v.  United States, 115  S. Ct. 1164
            ______  ___ ____ __________________________

            (1995); see  also United States v. Webster, 54 F.3d 1, 8 (1st
                    ___  ____ ________________________

            Cir. 1995); United States v. Castellone, 985 F.2d 21, 26 (1st
                        ___________________________

            Cir. 1993). 

                      The  government  contends  that  the  court clearly

            found  that Cali  served as  a manager  or supervisor  in the

            gambling  enterprise and  that  this  finding was  adequately

            supported  by  the transcripts  of the  conversations between

            Yerardi  and Cali  intercepted  by the  State Police,  Cali's

            acceptance  of  responsibility   statement,  and   affidavits

            provided by State Trooper  Tutungian.  See Joyce, 70  F.3d at
                                                   ___ _____

            682  (government  must  prove  role   in  the  offense  by  a

            preponderance of the  evidence and  may do so  by relying  on

            circumstantial evidence).  Our review of the record, however,

            reveals that  the court's findings  on this  issue were  less

            than  clear: there is a  discrepancy between the findings the

            district  court  made from  the  bench  at Cali's  sentencing

            hearing  and  those  it  offered in  its  subsequent  written

            judgment.  

                      Transcripts of the sentencing hearing  suggest that

            the court  did conclude that  Cali managed people  and assets

            for Yerardi's gambling business:

                      THE  COURT:  I  find that the defendant's
                      role was more than  simply that of record
                      keeper.  He was that, as described in one
                      part   of   the  testimony   that's  been
                      referred to as  the trial of  the Grabiec
                      case, but  that was not the  limit of his

                                         -17-
                                          17

                      participation.  And it is my finding that
                      he was  also coordinating the  efforts of
                      others  and  the  reports  of  others and
                      putting   that   together  and   advising
                      Yerardi about managerial decisions in the
                      operation of this ongoing enterprise over
                      a substantial length of time.
                           Those findings, in my view, under an
                      appropriate    interpretation   of    the
                      guidelines  support a  three-point upward
                      adjustment  in  the  calculation  of  the
                      total offense  level so as  to raise that
                      total  offense level by three points from
                      the   way  it   was  calculated   by  the
                      presentence investigation report and thus
                      move it up to 13. 

            But the written judgment summarizing the court's findings and

            decisions regarding the  adjustments and departures requested

            by the  government  and  Cali does  not  cite  management  or

            supervision  of individuals as  part of  Cali's offense.   It

            omits the  reference to individuals and refers only to Cali's

            alleged  

                                         -18-
                                          18

            management of assets: 

                      Government objection to failure of PSI to
                      add  four levels  under     3B1.1(a)  for
                      alleged supervisory role is rejected, but
                      I find (over defendant's  objection) that
                      an  upward  adjustment  of  3  levels  is
                      appropriate   under        3B1.1(b)   and
                      Application Note 2, because the defendant
                      exercised   a    degree   of   management
                      responsibility over  property and assets,
                      under  the  direction  of  the  principal
                      organizer and leader.  

                      The   government   invites   us   to   ignore  this

            discrepancy and to focus instead on the district court's oral

            explanation of its sentencing decisionmaking.  Ordinarily, we

            would accept such  an invitation.  "Where . .  . [a] district

            court's oral  expression of  its sentencing rationale  varies

            materially  from its  subsequent written  expression of  that

            rationale, appellate  courts have tended to  honor the former

            at the expense  of the latter."   United States v.  Muniz, 49
                                              _______________________

            F.3d 36, 42  n.5 (1st Cir. 1995);  see also United  States v.
                                               ___ ____ _________________

            Tramp, 30 F.3d 1035,  1037 (8th Cir. 1994); United  States v.
            _____                                       _________________

            Hicks,  997 F.2d 594, 597  (9th Cir. 1993);  United States v.
            _____                                        ________________

            Roberts, 933 F.2d 517, 519 n.1 (7th Cir. 1991)(citing cases);
            _______

            United  States v. Khoury, 901 F.2d 975, 977 (11th Cir. 1990).
            ________________________

            We decline, however, to do so in this instance.   

                      Because  the  written  judgment  and  the  district

            court's alternative  holding  -- that  Cali's  management  of

            assets  warranted  an  upward  departure  from  the  sentence

            prescribed under  the Guidelines -- both  focus on management

                                         -19-
                                          19

            of assets and  do not  mention management  of individuals  at

            all,  we think  it would be  imprudent to adhere  to the oral

            pronouncement made  in this case.   Furthermore, the  need to

            resolve the conflict in  the district court's 3B1.1 decisions

            by  remanding  for clarification  or  to  decide whether  the

            record  could  even  support  a  finding  that  Cali  managed

            individuals  -- an  issue  about which  we have  considerable

            doubt  --  is  obviated  by the  existence  of  the secondary

            holding.   It provides an alternative basis for upholding the

            fifteen-month  sentence  Cali received.    We  do not  decide

            whether a  sufficient factual predicate existed  to find that

            the defendant was  a manager of other  individuals within the

            meaning  of  section  3B1.1.    We  proceed,  instead,  to  a

            discussion of the district court's upward departure holding.

                  U.S.S.G.   3B1.1(b) Role in the Offense Departures
                  U.S.S.G.   3B1.1(b) Role in the Offense Departures
                  __________________________________________________

                      As an alternative to its upward adjustment holding,

            the  district  court  held  that the  asset  management  Cali

            conducted  during  his   involvement  in  Yerardi's  gambling

            business  justified a  three-level  upward  departure,  under

            section  3B1.1(b), to  impose a  sentence corresponding  to a

            total adjusted offense level of thirteen.  The district court

            found that Cali operated as more than a bookie or mere record

            keeper  and  that  the   threats  of  violence  which  marked

            Yerardi's  gambling and  loansharking businesses  took Cali's

            conduct outside  the  heartland  of  other  section  3B1.1(b)

                                         -20-
                                          20

            offenses.   Cali assigns error.   He argues,  first, that the

            facts of his case do not support a conclusion that he managed

            assets  and,  second,  that  the record,  to  the  extent  it

            reflects asset  management at all, does not  suggest that his

            conduct  falls outside  the  heartland  of  section  3B1.1(b)

            offenses.    See Rivera,  994 F.2d  at  947.   The government
                         ___ ______

            contends that Rivera's heartland  analysis does not apply and
                          ______

            urges us to accept the district court's findings of fact.

                      Before addressing  these arguments, we  discuss the

            rules pertaining  to departures from  sentences prescribed by

            the Guidelines.  Prior to the Court's recent decision in Koon
                                                                     ____

            v. United States, Nos. 94-1664, 94-8842, 1996 WL 315800 (U.S.
            ________________

            June 13, 1996), appellate courts were expected to engage in a

            three-part  departure   analysis.    See  United   States  v.
                                                 ___  ___________________

            Campbell, 61 F.3d 976, 984 (1st Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 116
            ________                                    _____ ______

            S. Ct. 1556 (1996); Rostoff, 53 F.3d at 404; United States v.
                                _______                  ________________

            Jackson,  30 F.3d  199,  202  (1st  Cir.  1994).    We  first
            _______

            conducted plenary review of  whether the circumstances of the

            case  were,  in  principle, of  a  kind  that the  Guidelines

            permitted  the  district  court   to  consider,  "with  'full

            awareness of, and respect for the trier's superior "feel" for

            the  case' .  . .  ."   Rivera, 994  F.2d at  951-52 (quoting
                                    ______

            United States  v. Diaz-Villafane, 874  F.2d 43, 50  (1st Cir.
            ________________________________

            1989)); see also United  States v. Bennett, 60 F.3d  902, 904
                    ___ ____ _________________________

            (1st Cir. 1995); United States v. Pelkey, 29 F.3d 11, 14 (1st
                             _______________________

                                         -21-
                                          21

            Cir. 1994). We then  reviewed the district court's departure-

            related findings of fact for clear error.  Pelkey, 29 F.3d at
                                                       ______

            14.  Finally, we assessed the reasonableness of the departure

            taken.  Id.
                    ___

                      Koon effectively merges the first and second stages
                      ____

            of our  departure analysis into  one, and instructs  that our

            review of  the legal  conclusions and  factual determinations

            underlying   the  district  court's   departure  decision  be

            conducted under a unitary abuse-of-discretion standard.   See
                                                                      ___

            Koon, 1996 WL 315800  at *9.  "That a  departure decision, in
            ____

            an occasional case,  may call for a legal  determination does

            not mean, as a consequence, that parts of the  review must be

            labeled de novo  while other  parts are labeled  an abuse  of

            discretion."    Id. at  *9-10.   Thus,  the analysis  we must
                            ___

            conduct in evaluating  departure decisions entails reviewing,

            under an  abuse of discretion standard,  the district court's

            determination that  the case  presents features that  make it

            sufficiently  unusual  to  take  it  out  of  the  applicable

            guideline's  heartland.  See id. at *12.  Abuse of discretion
                                     ___ ___

            review  necessarily "includes  review to  determine that  the

            [district court's  exercise of] discretion was  not guided by

            erroneous legal conclusions."  Id. at 10.  Additionally,  our
                                           ___

            analysis, like  our pre-Koon  review process, requires  us to
                                    ____

            assess the reasonableness of the departure taken.  

                                         -22-
                                          22

                      Decisions  to depart  from sentences  prescribed by

            the Guidelines are generally only permitted in cases in which

            unusual or  atypical circumstances justify  individualizing a

            sentence more than the  relatively narrow strictures that the

            Guidelines permit.  United States v. Calderon, 935 F.2d 9, 11
                                _________________________

            (1st Cir. 1991);  see also  Koon, 1996  WL 315800  at *7;  18
                              ___ ____  ____

            U.S.C.   3553(b).   In general, departure decisions fall into

            one  of  three  categories:     forbidden,  discouraged,  and

            encouraged.    Grandmaison,  77  F.3d  at  560.    "Forbidden
                           ___________

            departures  are    those based,  inter  alia,  on race,  sex,
                                             _____  ____

            national  origin, creed, religion, or  socioeconomic status."

            Id.; Rivera, 994 F.2d at  948-49; U.S.S.G.    5H1.10, 5H1.12.
            ___  ______

            "The   Sentencing  Commission . .  . has  expressly precluded

            departure  on these  grounds,  even where  they  make a  case

            atypical  or extraordinary."   Grandmaison,  77 F.3d  at 560.
                                           ___________

            "Discouraged departures involve factors which were considered

            by   the   Commission--such   as   age,   family   ties   and

            responsibilities, employment  record, good works, or physical

            condition--but which present  themselves to an  extraordinary

            degree in a  particular case."  Id.   "Encouraged departures,
                                            ___

            in  contrast, involve  considerations not   previously  taken

            into account by the Commission."  Id.  
                                              ___

                      The departure  analysis  "varies depending  on  the

            category  in  which  the  feature  [or  activity]  justifying

            departure falls."   United  States v.  DeMasi, 40 F.3d  1306,
                                _________________________

                                         -23-
                                          23

            1323 (1st Cir. 1994), cert. denied sub nom. Bonasia v. United
                                  _____ ______ ___ ____ _________________

            States,  115  S. Ct.  947 (1995).    Cali maintains  that the
            ______

            starting  point  for  our  review  of  the  district  court's

            departure  decision  must  be  an inquiry  into  whether  his

            conduct  was  more  egregious  than  that  of  other  section

            3B1.1(b)  offenders.    The   government  disputes  this  and

            contends  that such  an investigation  is unnecessary  in the

            role-in-the-offense   context    because   section   3B1.1(b)

            departures are encouraged.  We agree with the government.  

                      Section  3B1.1 departures are clearly encouraged by

            the Commission.  The  language of Application Note 2  -- that

            "upward departure  may be warranted  . . .  in the case  of a

            defendant who . .  . exercised management responsibility over

            the   property,  assets,   or   activities   of  a   criminal

            organization"  --  endorses   management  of   assets  as   a

            permissible basis for upward departure.  This endorsement and

            our  determination that  section  3B1.1 does  not incorporate

            asset  management  as  a sentencing  factor  lead  us  to the

            conclusion that  the district court was  authorized to depart

            without first engaging in the analysis Cali urges.  Where the

            Commission  has explicitly  identified certain  activities or

            conduct  as a factor not adequately taken into account in its

            formulation of a particular guideline and that guideline does

            not  incorporate that factor at all, we can be confident that

            the  departure undertaken  was not  unreasonable.   See Koon,
                                                                ___ ____

                                         -24-
                                          24

            1996  WL 315800  at  *8; Rivera,  994 F.2d  at 948;  see also
                                     ______                      ___ ____

            United States v. Diaz-Martinez, 71 F.3d 946, 952-53 (1st Cir.
            ______________________________

            1995)(reviewing   encouraged   U.S.S.G.        2K2.1   upward

            departure); Rostoff,  53 F.3d  at  406 (reviewing  encouraged
                        _______

            U.S.S.G.     2F1.1  downward  departure);  United  States  v.
                                                       __________________

            Quinones,  26   F.3d  213,  218  (1st   Cir.  1994)(reviewing
            ________

            encouraged U.S.S.G.   5K2.8 upward departure).  Resort to the

            "heartland"  analysis  generally  reserved   for  discouraged

            departures  is, therefore,  unnecessary.   See Koon,  1996 WL
                                                       ___ ____

            315800  at *8; McFarlane, 64  F.3d at 1240;  United States v.
                           _________                     ________________

            Mendez-Colon, 15  F.3d 188,  190-91  (1st Cir.  1994)(Breyer,
            ____________

            C.J.); compare  DeMasi, 40  F.3d at 1323  (describing process
                   _______  ______

            for  comparing  cases   involving  discouraged  reasons   for

            departure).      Management   of   a   large-scale   criminal

            enterprise's assets is conduct which,  under Application Note

            2 to section  3B1.1 and hence  as a matter  of law, places  a

            defendant outside  the heartland of  offenses by  individuals

            who participate in  large-scale criminal enterprises  but who

            do not manage assets.  See Rivera, 994 F.2d at 948.
                                   ___ ______

                      Having concluded that the relevant circumstances of

            Cali's  case constitute  an  encouraged  basis for  departure

            under the Guidelines,  we proceed  to the next  stage in  our

            analysis.   Cali asserts that the  district court erroneously

            found that he managed  gambling assets.  While Cali  paints a

            persuasive  picture  of   his  role  in   Yerardi's  gambling

                                         -25-
                                          25

            business, we cannot  say that the  district court abused  its

            discretion.   "[W]hen there  are two plausible  views of  the

            record,  the sentencing  court's  adoption of  one such  view

            cannot be clearly erroneous."  St. Cyr, 977 F.2d at  706; see
                                           _______                    ___

            also Munoz, 36  F.3d at  1240; United States  v. Brewster,  1
            ____ _____                     __________________________

            F.3d 51, 55 (1st Cir. 1993); Savoie, 985 F.2d at 616.
                                         ______

                      The government presented evidence which was a solid

            basis  for the district  court to conclude  that Cali managed

            assets  and  was  more than  a  mere  "bookie"  or "telephone

            operator" in Yerardi's   business.   The record reveals  that

            the  information Cali recorded  and analyzed was  an asset or

            possession of  great value to  the gambling enterprise.   See
                                                                      ___

            Webster's II New Riverside  University Dictionary 131 (1994).
            _________________________________________________

            It  also shows that Cali  fielded calls from  and placed bets

            for various agents, as  a bookie might do, but  also directly

            reviewed betting  and makeup figures with  the individual who

            presided  over   the   gambling  enterprise,   Yerardi,   and

            participated   in   "charting"   --   i.e.,   assessing   the

            organization's risk of  loss.  Compare  Parmelee, 42 F.3d  at
                                           _______  ________

            395  (control of plane inherent in role of pilot for criminal

            enterprise).  Though Yerardi seems to have made the decisions

            about  when and whom to  chart, the record  suggests that the

            responsibility  for  keeping   the  organization's   records,

            calculating the business's risk of loss on particular events,

            and assisting Yerardi in assessing the organization's overall

                                         -26-
                                          26

            financial  health  primarily   rested  with   Cali  and   his

            counterpart, DeAngelis.  The transcripts of calls intercepted

            by  the  State  Police,  in  particular,  suggest  that  Cali

            exercised  discretion  or  control  over  the  organization's

            information  and   that  Yerardi  heavily  relied  on  Cali's

            expertise and special knowledge of the business's operations.

            We, therefore,  do not think the  district court's conclusion

            that Cali  managed assets or enjoyed  executive status within

            the gambling enterprise implausible.  

                      Nor do we think  the extent of the  departure taken

            by the  district court  unreasonable.  Quinones,  26 F.3d  at
                                                   ________

            219.    The  three-level  upward  departure  taken  from  the

            sentence tabulated  under the Guidelines represents  a three-

            month  increase  in  the  maximum sentence  Cali  could  have

            received and an even smaller increase in the actual time Cali

            will serve in prison.  Because of this, the reasons given for

            the upward departure, and the deference due  the special feel

            the district  court developed for this case in presiding over

            the  legal proceedings  for Cali's  co-conspirators,  we find

            that  the upward  departure  the district  court imposed  was

            reasonable.  See Rostoff,  53 F.3d at 409 (judgment  call for
                         ___ _______

            decision  regarding  extent of  departure  is  ultimately the

            district court's).  

                                          V.
                                          V.

                                     CONCLUSION  
                                     CONCLUSION
                                     __________

                                         -27-
                                          27

                      For  the  foregoing  reasons, Cali's  fifteen-month

            sentence of imprisonment is affirmed.   
                                        affirmed
                                        ________

                                         -28-
                                          28