Sentencing — leadership enhancement

Listen to this article

United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit

Criminal

Sentencing — leadership enhancement

Where a defendant supervised a drug mule, he was properly given an enhancement under U.S.S.G. 3B1.1.

“[S]upervision often consists of transmitting directives from above. Low-level supervisors are themselves closely supervised and thus have little discretion. The defendant argues that the only reason Primo didn’t communicate directly with Cruz was to reduce the probability of being apprehended, by having a layer between himself and the mule, that layer being the defendant (a “cutout”). But by the same token the defendant obtained some protection against apprehension by having a mule to fetch the drugs, rather than courting arrest by doing that himself—and indeed it was Cruz who was arrested first and the defendant only after Cruz agreed to cooperate with the authorities and led the defendant into a trap.”

“Because to be a ‘manager’ or ‘supervisor’ is to occupy a role—to have a status—cases distinguish between ongoing supervision and merely asking a coconspirator on one occasion to do something. United States v. Mankiewicz, 122 F.3d 399, 405-06 and n. 4 (7th Cir. 1997); United States v. Mitchell, 85 F.3d 800, 813-14 (1st Cir. 1996); United States v. McGregor, 11 F.3d 1133, 1138-39 (2d Cir. 1993). The defendant’s supervision of Cruz, however, was continuous.”

Affirmed.

11-2594 U.S. v. Figueroa

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Der-Yeghiayan, J., Posner, J.