Court Opinion

ID: 9953013
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-21 14:00:56.405707+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:45:35.926687
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 23-11873    Document: 26-1     Date Filed: 03/21/2024   Page: 1 of 7

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]
                                   In the
                United States Court of Appeals
                        For the Eleventh Circuit

                          ____________________

                                No. 23-11873
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                      Plaintiﬀ-Appellee,
       versus
       URIEL FAJARDO-ALBARRAN,

                                                  Defendant- Appellant.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Middle District of Florida
                   D.C. Docket No. 5:22-cr-00074-JA-PRL-1
                          ____________________
USCA11 Case: 23-11873     Document: 26-1      Date Filed: 03/21/2024    Page: 2 of 7

       2                      Opinion of the Court                23-11873

       Before JILL PRYOR, NEWSOM, and BRANCH, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
               Uriel Fajardo-Albarran appeals his 276-month sentence for
       one count of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 50
       grams or more of methamphetamine and three counts of
       distribution and possession with intent to distribute 50 grams or
       more of methamphetamine. On appeal, he argues that the
       district court erred by applying an aggravating-role enhancement
       under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(a) because, he says, there were not five or
       more identified participants in the conspiracy. After careful
       review of the parties’ arguments, we affirm.
              We review a district court’s finding regarding a defendant’s
       role in the offense under § 3B1.1 for clear error. United States v.
       Moran, 778 F.3d 942, 979 (11th Cir. 2015). A factual finding is
       clearly erroneous when, in light of the entire record, we are “left
       with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been
       committed.” United States v. Gupta, 572 F.3d 878, 887 (11th Cir.
       2009) (quotation marks omitted). “The district court’s choice
       between two permissible views of the evidence as to the
       defendant’s role in the offense will rarely constitute clear error so
       long as the basis of the trial court’s decision is supported by the
       record and does not involve a misapplication of a rule of law.”
       United States v. Cruickshank, 837 F.3d 1182, 1192 (11th Cir. 2016)
       (quotation marks omitted). While we review the facts for clear
       error, the district court’s determination that an individual is a
USCA11 Case: 23-11873     Document: 26-1     Date Filed: 03/21/2024    Page: 3 of 7

       23-11873              Opinion of the Court                        3

       “participant” under § 3B1.1 is a question of law that we review de
       novo. United States v. Williams, 527 F.3d 1235, 1249 (11th Cir.
       2008).
               Under the sentencing guidelines, a four-level enhancement
       applies if the defendant “was an organizer or leader of a criminal
       activity that involved ﬁve or more participants or was otherwise
       extensive.”     U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(a).     Regarding the “otherwise
       extensive” prong, the court must consider “all persons involved
       during the course of the entire oﬀense.” Id. § 3B1.1 cmt. 3.
       Under this prong, the defendant must have been an organizer of
       just one or more other participant. Id. § 3B1.1 cmt. 2; United
       States v. Walker, 490 F.3d 1282, 1301 (11th Cir. 2007).
              “A ‘participant’ under § 3B1.1 is a ‘person who is criminally
       responsible for the commission of the oﬀense but need not have
       been convicted.’” United States v. Zitron, 810 F.3d 1253, 1261 (11th
       Cir. 2016) (quoting U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1 cmt. 1). In assessing whether
       an individual is “criminally responsible,” we may consider any of
       the acts directed by the defendant that were “part of the same
       course of conduct or common scheme or plan as the oﬀense of
       conviction.” Id. at 1261–62 (quotation marks omitted). Thus, it
       is enough if an individual knowingly participates in the criminal
       conduct. Id. at 1262. The defendant may be considered one of
       the participants in counting the number of participants involved in
       the oﬀense. See United States v. Duperval, 777 F.3d 1324, 1337 (11th
       Cir. 2015). A person who “is not criminally responsible for the
       commission of the oﬀense,” such as an undercover law
USCA11 Case: 23-11873     Document: 26-1     Date Filed: 03/21/2024    Page: 4 of 7

       4                     Opinion of the Court                23-11873

       enforcement oﬃcer, is not a participant within the meaning of the
       Guidelines. U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1 cmt. 1. For a court to impose the
       enhancement, the government must establish by a preponderance
       of the evidence that the defendant exerted some control, inﬂuence,
       or decision-making authority over another participant in the
       criminal activity. United States v. Martinez, 584 F.3d 1022, 1026–27
       (11th Cir. 2009); U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1 cmt. 2.
               The commentary to § 3B1.1 provides several factors for a
       sentencing court to consider in distinguishing a leadership role
       from a management role: “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.” U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1 cmt. 4. There is no requirement
       that all the factors be present for the enhancement to apply, and
       there may be more than one person who qualiﬁes as a leader. Id.;
       Martinez, 584 F.3d at 1026.
               In making the ultimate determination of the defendant’s
       role in the oﬀense, the sentencing judge has no duty to make
       speciﬁc subsidiary factual ﬁndings. United States v. De Varon,
       175 F.3d 930, 939 (11th Cir. 1999) (en banc). “So long as the
       district court’s decision is supported by the record and the court
       clearly resolves any disputed factual issues, a simple statement of
       the district court’s factual conclusion is suﬃcient.” Id. (emphasis
USCA11 Case: 23-11873     Document: 26-1     Date Filed: 03/21/2024    Page: 5 of 7

       23-11873              Opinion of the Court                        5

       omitted). In determining the defendant’s role, ﬁrst, “the district
       court must measure the defendant’s role against the relevant
       conduct for which [he] was held accountable at sentencing.” Id. at
       945. Second, the district court must measure the defendant’s role
       against the other discernable participants in the relevant
       conduct. Id. at 944–45.           And we have noted that the
       non-exhaustive list of factors outlined in the amended commentary
       acts to clarify what a court should consider when making role
       determinations while still embracing the approach from De Varon.
       United States v. Cabezas-Montano, 949 F.3d 567, 606 (11th Cir. 2020)
       (quotation marks omitted).
              Here, Fajardo-Albarran cannot show that the district court
       erred in imposing a four-level role enhancement pursuant to
       U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(a), because the government showed by a
       preponderance of the evidence that he was an organizer or leader
       of drug-traﬃcking activity that involved ﬁve or more participants
       or was otherwise extensive. The district court properly applied
       Fajardo-Albarran’s conduct to the seven factors that we consider
       when determining if a defendant is an organizer or leader and
       found that nearly all the criteria weighed in favor of the role
       enhancement. See U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1, cmt. 4; see also Martinez, 584
       F.3d at 1026–28. At his trial, the government provided evidence
       that Fajardo-Albarran exercised decision-making authority over at
       least one of his co-conspirators, his brother Zuriel; was involved
       with distribution of the drugs; obtained the drugs personally and
       through Zuriel; fronted drugs to those he supplied; traveled to
       Atlanta and Mexico as part of the conspiracy; sent Zuriel to Texas
USCA11 Case: 23-11873     Document: 26-1     Date Filed: 03/21/2024    Page: 6 of 7

       6                     Opinion of the Court                23-11873

       to obtain drugs; and recruited at least two participants. This
       evidence demonstrates Fajardo-Albarran’s planning and
       organization, decisionmaking authority and control of others, and
       high degree of participation and leadership nature in the drug-
       traﬃcking activity. Even if the evidence did not support a ﬁnding
       that Fajardo-Albarran claimed a right to the larger share of the
       proﬁts of the drug sales, the enhancement does not require that
       each factor be present.
              The district court also properly determined that the
       conspiracy involved ﬁve or more participants, as trial testimony and
       evidence presented established at least seven named and several
       unnamed individuals were participants in the conspiracy, which
       exceeds the required ﬁve participants. For example, the record
       reveals that Fajardo-Albarran had an ongoing relationship with
       witness Heather Hutchinson wherein he would front several
       ounces of methamphetamine to her each week, and Fajardo-
       Albarran concedes that she was a participant. Trial testimony and
       exhibits support that a government conﬁdential source, Robert
       Waldron, participated in controlled buys with Fajardo-Albarran,
       and that on several occasions Waldron was fronted drugs by
       Fajardo-Albarran outside the scope of his government
       cooperation. While Fajardo-Albarran argues that Waldron could
       not be a participant because he acted as a government agent,
       Waldron exceeded the scope of his work as a conﬁdential source
       by participating in at least ﬁve transactions with Fajardo-Albarran
       without law enforcement’s knowledge. Additionally, text and
       Facebook messages entered into evidence showed that Fajardo-
USCA11 Case: 23-11873     Document: 26-1     Date Filed: 03/21/2024    Page: 7 of 7

       23-11873              Opinion of the Court                        7

       Albarran provided drugs on credit to two other individuals and that
       Fajardo-Albarran recruited another two individuals to sell drugs for
       him.     Testimony and trial exhibits revealed that another
       participant, Kike Fajardo, and Fajardo-Albarran discussed sources
       of supply in Atlanta, coordinated the sales of methamphetamine,
       and brokered deals. Moreover, Fajardo-Albarran concedes that
       his brother Zuriel was a participant.
              In conclusion, the district court not err by applying a
       four-level aggravating role enhancement because the evidence
       showed that Fajardo-Albarran was an organizer or leader of drug-
       traﬃcking activity that involved ﬁve or more participants or was
       otherwise extensive. Further, the court was not required to make
       a speciﬁc factual ﬁnding with respect to the identity of each
       participant in the scheme.         De Varon, 175 F.3d at 939.
       Accordingly, we aﬃrm.
             AFFIRMED.