At page 118 Reviewing sentencing findings of organizer or supervisor status22 citing casesdistrict court's factual findings must be accepted unless clearly erroneous
- United States v. Glover, 179 F.3d 1300 (11th Cir. 1999).published (There was sufficient evidence regarding [the defendant’s] management of the stash house, receipt of cocaine, and distribution of various allotments of cocaine to others to support a finding that he was an ‘organizer’ o…)
- United States v. Elsa Ramos & Jairo Ramos, 932 F.2d 611 (7th Cir. 1991).published (That there were bigger fish in the larger scheme does not, however, absolve [the defendant] of the supervisory role he played_)
- United States v. Agustin Flores-Sandoval, 94 F.3d 346 (7th Cir. 1996).published(That there were bigger fish in the larger scheme does not ... absolve [Flores] of the supervisory role he played_)
- United States v. Richard Williams & William Scott Hames, 59 F.3d 1180 (11th Cir. 1995).publishedUnited States v. Carrillo, 888 F.2d 117, 118 (11th Cir.1989).
- United States v. David Wayne Holland, Cross-Appellee, 22 F.3d 1040 (11th Cir. 1994).publishedA. The district court’s probation office recommended a four level enhancement of Holland’s base offense levels under guideline 3B1.1, which provides for such an adjustment when, “[b]ased on [his] role in the offense[s], ... the defendant w…
- United States v. Bernard Chris Costales, Cross-Appellee, 5 F.3d 480 (11th Cir. 1993).publishedUnited States v. Mieres-Borges, 919 F.2d 652, 662-63 (11th Cir.1990), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 111 S.Ct. 1633 , 113 L.Ed.2d 728 (1991); United States v. Carrillo, 888 F.2d 117, 118 (11th Cir.1989) (per curiam). .On the other hand, the issue…
- United States v. Roger Skinner, 986 F.2d 1091 (7th Cir. 1993).published But see United States v. Bost, 968 F.2d 729, 734 (8th Cir.1992) (court relied on none of the commentary factors, instead observing that the defendant was the leader of the conspiracy and the most culpable of those that were indicted); Unit…
- United States v. Andrew Newman Jones, David D. Hodge, Andrew Zweigbaum, United States of Am. v. Tammy Kay Huskin, United States of Am. v. Jerome Michael Siegel, 933 F.2d 1541 (11th Cir. 1991).publishedUnited States v. Carrillo, 888 F.2d 117, 118 (11th Cir.1989).
- United States v. Jones, 933 F.2d 1541 (11th Cir. 1991).publishedUnited States v. Carrillo, 888 F.2d 117, 118 (11th Cir.1989).
- United States v. Roberto Mieres-Borges & Osvaldo Becerra-Flores, 919 F.2d 652 (11th Cir. 1990).published United States v. Carrillo, 888 F.2d 117, 118 (11th Cir.1989) (per curiam) (citations omitted).
Show 10 more citing cases
- United States v. Willie Frank Wyckoff, 918 F.2d 925 (11th Cir. 1990).publishedUnited States v. Carrillo, 888 F.2d 117, 118 (11th Cir.1989); 18 U.S.C. § 3742 (e).
- United States v. Jesus Castillo-Valencia, & Jose Pulido-Gomez, 917 F.2d 494 (11th Cir. 1990).publishedUnited States v. Carrillo, 888 F.2d 117, 118 (11th Cir.1989) (citing United States v. Wright, 873 F.2d 437, 444 (1st Cir.1989); United States v. Mejia-Orosco, 867 F.2d 216 (5th Cir.1989)). *502 The commentary to section 3B1.1 sets forth a…
- United States of Am., Cross-Appellant v. Anthony Chotas, Cross-Appellee, 913 F.2d 897 (11th Cir. 1990).published (district court's factual findings must be accepted unless clearly erroneous)
- United States v. Stanko Markovic, Mijodrag Petrovic, 911 F.2d 613 (11th Cir. 1990).publishedFinally, we consider the issue of the enhancement of Markovic’s offense level under Section 3Bl.l(c) of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines from 14 to 16 for his role as “an organizer, leader, manager, or supervisor in any non-extensive crim…
- United States v. Douglas Mark Pritchett, Phillip Doyle Boothe, David E. Pritchett, Joseph C. Pritchett, Rhonda Pritchett (Reinstated), 908 F.2d 816 (11th Cir. 1990).publishedThese findings are subject to the clearly erroneous standard of review, United States v. Carrillo, 888 F.2d 117, 118 (11th Cir.1989), and we find no grounds for reversal of these findings by the district court.
- United States v. Rios, Appeal of Luis Guillermo Rios, A/K/A \Memo\"", 893 F.2d 479 (2d Cir. 1990).publishedV 1987); United States v. Carrillo, 888 F.2d 117, 118 (11th Cir.1989).
- United States v. Ira Simmons, 924 F.2d 187 (11th Cir. 1991).published(district court’s factual findings must be accepted unless clearly erroneous)
- United States v. Isabel Rodriguez De Varon, 175 F.3d 930 (11th Cir. 1999).published See, e.g., United States v. Carrillo, 888 F.2d 117, 118 (11th Cir.1989) (per curiam).
- United States v. De Varon, 136 F.3d 740 (11th Cir. 1998).published See, e.g., United States v. Carrillo, 888 F.2d 117, 118 (11th Cir.1989) (per curiam).
- United States v. James T. Weaver, 920 F.2d 1570 (11th Cir. 1991).published (district court’s factual findings must be accepted unless clearly erroneous)
Other citing cases
- United States v. Juan Cebreros-Iribe, 953 F.2d 1388 (9th Cir. 1992).unpublished
v.
Narrciso CARRILLO, Defendant-Appellant
The sole issue presented in this appeal is whether in applying the sentencing guidelines the district court erred in finding that Carrillo was a “supervisor” or “organizer.” Because we conclude that the finding was not clearly erroneous, we affirm.
Carrillo pled guilty to one count of possessing 80 kilograms of cocaine. The pre-sentence report (“PSI”) computed Carrillo’s[*118] initial base offense level as 36, reduced it by two points in recognition of his acceptance of responsibility, but increased it by two points because of his role as a “supervisor” or “organizer.”
In reviewing a sentence imposed under the guidelines, the factual findings of the sentencing court are entitled to great deference and must be accepted unless clearly erroneous. United States v. Spraggins, 868 F.2d 1541, 1543 (11th Cir.1989); see also United States v. Wilson, 884 F.2d 1355, 1356-57 (11th Cir.1989). In examining the sentencing court’s determination that a defendant was a “minor” or “minimal” participant, we have used the clearly erroneous standard. United States v. Erves, 880 F.2d 376, 380-81 (11th Cir.1989); see also United States v. Davis, 878 F.2d 1299, 1300 (11th Cir.1989). Similarly, in reviewing a finding that the defendant was an “organizer” or “supervisor” under Guideline § 3Bl.l(c), the factual conclusion of the sentencing court should be reversed only if clearly erroneous. See United States v. Wright, 873 F.2d 437, 444 (1st Cir.1989); United States v. Mejia-Orosco, 867 F.2d 216 (5th Cir.1989).
Carrillo argues that the findings were clearly erroneous, that he was a fisherman with a fourth grade education, a warehouseman who was himself a subordinate of others, a “supervisor” only “over other similar low level employees in a narcotics distribution ring.” That there were bigger fish in the larger scheme does not, however, absolve Carrillo of the supervisory role he played in managing the “stash house.” There was sufficient evidence regarding Carrillo’s management of the stash house, receipt of cocaine, and distribution of various allotments of cocaine to others to support a finding that he was an “organizer” or “supervisor.” Accordingly, we AFFIRM.