U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1
Aggravating Role
Based on the defendant's role in the offense, increase the offense level as follows:
(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 subsection (a) or (b), increase by 2 levels.
Commentary
Application Notes:
1. Definition of "Participant".—A "participant" is a person who is criminally responsible for the commission of the offense, but need not have been convicted. A person who is not criminally responsible for the commission of the offense (e.g., an undercover law enforcement officer) is not a participant. 2. Organizer, Leader, Manager, or Supervisor of One or More Participants.—To qualify for an adjustment under this section, the defendant must have been the organizer, leader, manager, or supervisor of one or more other participants. 3. "Otherwise Extensive".—In assessing whether an organization is "otherwise extensive," all persons involved during the course of the entire offense are to be considered. Thus, a fraud that involved only three participants but used the unknowing services of many outsiders could be considered extensive. 4. Factors to Consider.—In distinguishing a leadership and organizational role from one of mere management or supervision, titles such as "kingpin" or "boss" are not controlling. Factors the court should consider include 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. There can, of course, be more than one person who qualifies as a leader or organizer of a criminal association or conspiracy. This adjustment does not apply to a defendant who merely suggests committing the offense. Background: This section provides a range of adjustments to increase the offense level based upon the size of a criminal organization (i.e., the number of participants in the offense) and the degree to which the defendant was responsible for committing the offense. This adjustment is included primarily because of concerns about relative responsibility. However, it is also likely that persons who exercise a supervisory or managerial role in the commission of an offense tend to profit more from it and present a greater danger to the public and/or are more likely to recidivate. The Commission's intent is that this adjustment should increase with both the size of the organization and the degree of the defendant's responsibility.In relatively small criminal enterprises that are not otherwise to be considered as extensive in scope or in planning or preparation, the distinction between organization and leadership, and that of management or supervision, is of less significance than in larger enterprises that tend to have clearly delineated divisions of responsibility. This is reflected in the inclusiveness of §3B1.1(c).
Historical Note: Effective November 1, 1987. Amended effective November 1, 1991 (amendment 414); November 1, 1993 (amendment 500); November 1, 2024 (amendment 831); November 1, 2025 (amendment 836).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4,223
cases (617 in the last 5 years), 1989–2026 · leading case: United States v. Williams, 527 F.3d 1235 (11th Cir. 2008).
United States v. Williams, 527 F.3d 1235 (11th Cir. 2008). “" U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1, cmt. n.2. [11] "Participant" is defined as "a person who is criminally responsible for the commission of the offense, but need not have been convicted.”
United States v. Thorson, 633 F.3d 312 (4th Cir. 2011). “Challenging his sentence on appeal, Thorson contends that the district court erred in (1) enhancing his sentence under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1, as an "organizer or leader" of the tax fraud scheme; (2) enhancing his sentence under U.”
United States v. Antoinette Adair, 38 F.4th 341 (3d Cir. 2022). “1’s zone of ambiguity. See id. at 2416. And they did not examine the character and context of the Commission’s interpretation.”
United States v. Robert Schuh, Lisa Nolen, & Curtis Lane, 289 F.3d 968 (7th Cir. 2002). “U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1. We review for clear error the district court’s factual finding that a defendant was an organizer or leader, United States v.”
United States v. Moncivais, 492 F.3d 652 (6th Cir. 2007). “The District Court did not Err by Concluding that Defendant was an Organizer or Leader Next, Defendant argues that his sentence should be vacated because the district court enhanced his advisory Guidelines range by four points under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1. We have not settled the…”
United States v. Jeross, 521 F.3d 562 (6th Cir. 2008). “USSG § 3B1.1, app. n. 3. "The standard applied to sentencing factors is preponderance of the evidence.”
United States v. Martinez, 584 F.3d 1022 (11th Cir. 2009). “” U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1 cmt. (backg’d). 1 Accordingly, the four level enhancement could be imposed on Martinez only if he were both (1) an organizer or leader, and (2) the criminal activity involved either five or more participants or was otherwise extensive.”
United States v. Randy Irlmeier, 750 F.3d 759 (8th Cir. 2014). “The district court determined that their sentences warranted an aggravating role enhancement pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1, which precluded them from obtaining safety-valve relief under 18 U.”
United States v. Isabel Rodriguez De Varon, 175 F.3d 930 (11th Cir. 1999). “” U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1, comment, (n.l). The application note provides, for example, that a four-level reduction would be appropriate “for someone who played no other role in a very large drug smuggling operation than to offload part of a single marihuana shipment, or in a case where…”
United States v. Louper-Morris, 672 F.3d 539 (8th Cir. 2012). “1712 ; 5) the district court erred in enhancing his base offense level by four points for his role as a leader or organizer of an activity involving five or more participants under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1 and by two points for the sophisticated-means enhancement under U.”
United States v. Gregorio Gonzalez-Longoria, 831 F.3d 670 (5th Cir. 2016). “8 U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(a). 9 U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(b).”
United States v. Leonard Andrew Sayles, Jr, A/K/A Leno, United States of Am. v. Robert Jared Smith, 296 F.3d 219 (4th Cir. 2002). “” U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1, cmt. n. 4. These include: “[1] the exercise of decision making authority, [2] the nature of participation in the commission of the offense, [3] the recruitment of accomplices, [4] the claimed right to a larger share of the fruits of the crime, [5] the degree…”
U.S.S.G. §3B1.1(1)(c): 1 case
United States v. Douglas Jackson (7th Cir. 2017).
U.S.S.G. §3B1.1(2): 1 case
Johnson v. United States (E.D. Mo. 2024).
U.S.S.G. §3B1.1(4): 1 case
United States v. Young Ji Chung, 71 F. Supp. 2d 66 (N.D.N.Y. 1999).
U.S.S.G. §3B1.1(A): 4 cases
United States v. Van Ray Yarnell, 129 F.3d 1127 (10th Cir. 1997).
United States v. Abdallah (5th Cir. 2002).
United States v. Yarnell (10th Cir. 1997).
United States v. Webb (10th Cir. 1999).
U.S.S.G. §3B1.1(B): 1 case
United States v. Kerome Lendon Paisley, 178 F. App'x 955 (11th Cir. 2006).
U.S.S.G. §3B1.1(C): 6 cases
United States v. Serrata, 425 F.3d 886 (10th Cir. 2005).
United States v. Salim, 287 F. Supp. 2d 250 (S.D.N.Y. 2003).
United States v. Frank Cardenas Guajardo, 950 F.2d 203 (5th Cir. 1991).
United States v. Hugo Manosalva-Sanchez, 422 F. App'x 484 (6th Cir. 2011).
United States v. Rodriguez-Tamez, 137 F. App'x 717 (5th Cir. 2005).
U.S.S.G. §3B1.1(a): 1042 cases
United States v. Antoinette Adair, 38 F.4th 341 (3d Cir. 2022). “1’s zone of ambiguity. See id. at 2416. And they did not examine the character and context of the Commission’s interpretation.”
United States v. Erpenbeck, 532 F.3d 423 (6th Cir. 2008).
United States v. Sylvia Walter-Eze, 869 F.3d 891 (9th Cir. 2017).
United States v. Hamilton, 587 F.3d 1199 (10th Cir. 2009).
United States v. Moncivais, 492 F.3d 652 (6th Cir. 2007). “The District Court did not Err by Concluding that Defendant was an Organizer or Leader Next, Defendant argues that his sentence should be vacated because the district court enhanced his advisory Guidelines range by four points under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1. We have not settled the…”
U.S.S.G. §3B1.1(a)(1): 4 cases
United States v. Hollins, 498 F.3d 622 (7th Cir. 2007).
United States v. Lamar Thornton (6th Cir. 2020).
Blea (D.N.M. 2025).
United States v. Hollins, Darius (7th Cir. 2007).
U.S.S.G. §3B1.1(a)(1993): 1 case
United States v. Eidson (11th Cir. 1997).
U.S.S.G. §3B1.1(b): 542 cases
United States v. Gregorio Gonzalez-Longoria, 831 F.3d 670 (5th Cir. 2016). “8 U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(a). 9 U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(b).”
United States v. James Herrera, 974 F.3d 1040 (9th Cir. 2020).
United States v. Javier Perez, 962 F.3d 420 (9th Cir. 2020).
United States v. Pena-Hermosillo, 522 F.3d 1108 (10th Cir. 2008).
United States v. Michael Bikundi, Sr., 926 F.3d 761 (D.C. Cir. 2019).
U.S.S.G. §3B1.1(b)(10)(C): 3 cases
United States v. John Roberts, 919 F.3d 980 (6th Cir. 2019).
United States v. John Roberts (6th Cir. 2019).
United States v. John Roberts (6th Cir. 2019).
U.S.S.G. §3B1.1(b)(2003): 1 case
United States v. Smith, 139 F. App'x 681 (6th Cir. 2005).
U.S.S.G. §3B1.1(c): 687 cases
United States v. Williams, 527 F.3d 1235 (11th Cir. 2008). “" U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1, cmt. n.2. [11] "Participant" is defined as "a person who is criminally responsible for the commission of the offense, but need not have been convicted.”
United States v. Terry Christensen, 828 F.3d 763 (9th Cir. 2016).
United States v. Daniel Francisco Ramirez, 426 F.3d 1344 (11th Cir. 2005).
United States v. Gilberto Gomez, 905 F.3d 347 (5th Cir. 2018).
United States v. Christian Lovies, 16 F.4th 493 (7th Cir. 2021).
U.S.S.G. §3B1.1(e): 14 cases
United States v. Ward, 506 F.3d 468 (6th Cir. 2007).
United States v. Jones, 523 F.3d 31 (1st Cir. 2008).
United States v. Samy A. Mankarious & Thomas K. Murphy, 151 F.3d 694 (7th Cir. 1998).
United States v. Cervantes-Chavez, 59 F. Supp. 3d 1295 (D.N.M. 2014).
United States v. Williams, 48 F. App'x 974 (6th Cir. 2002).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.