4th Circuit: Court correctly applied sentence enhancement

Where the record supported the conclusion that the defendant controlled the activities of other participants or exercised management responsibility in a conspiracy involving large quantities of methamphetamine in various forms, the district court did not err in applying a three-level managerial role enhancement.

Background

Oscar Pliego-Pineda, who pleaded guilty to two counts of conspiracy, appeals the 120-month sentence imposed by the district court. On appeal, Pliego-Pineda argues (1) the district court clearly erred in applying a three-level managerial role enhancement under the United States Sentencing Commission Guidelines Manual and (2) his sentence is substantively unreasonable given the district court’s error.

Standard

Under Guideline § 3B1.1(b), a three-level enhancement “is appropriate where the evidence demonstrates that the defendant ‘controlled the activities of other participants’ or ‘exercised management responsibility.’” In United States v. Bartley, 230 F.3d 667 (4th Cir. 2000), the court held coordinating the activities of others is sufficient to warrant the enhancement. Indeed, the Guidelines make clear the management or supervision of just one participant alone renders the enhancement appropriate.

The court has explained that a district court, in applying the common meaning of these terms, “must consider” the following seven factors set forth in the commentary: “[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 of participation in planning or organizing the offense, [6] the nature and scope of the illegal activity, and [7] the degree of control and authority exercised over others.” Neither party has disputed this court is bound by this commentary

Analysis

Having reviewed the record as a whole, this court is unable to conclude the district court clearly erred in finding Pliego-Pineda constituted a manager or supervisor of a criminal activity involving five or more participants. As to the exercise of decision-making authority, the organization vested Pliego- Pineda with significant authority. He decided whether to trust particular buyers and whether to arrange recurring deals involving large quantities of methamphetamine in various forms.

Further, as to the nature of participation in the conspiracy, Pliego-Pineda served as the organization’s primary contact in Atlanta, connecting the supplier in Mexico with buyers in North Carolina. Pliego-Pineda also had a high degree of participation in organizing the offense. As a self-proclaimed “middle man,” Pliego-Pineda negotiated the price of large-scale transactions; arranged interstate and international drug deliveries; fronted supply to, and accepted partial payments from, buyers; managed, and presumably distributed, thousands of dollars in drug proceeds and oversaw issues regarding the quality and quantity of drugs sold.

Next, as to the nature and scope of the criminal activity and the requirement it involve at least five participants, the conspiracy consisted of at least 10 individuals trafficking large amounts of methamphetamine throughout Mexico, California, Georgia and North Carolina. Although the district court lacked direct evidence of Pliego-Pineda instructing couriers to deliver drugs, this is immaterial, as an abundance of circumstantial evidence indicates Pliego-Pineda, as the Atlanta hub of the organization, controlled the activities of Pineda, Mondragon-Penaloza, Garcia-Tovar, Bustos-Martinez and unnamed individuals who shipped packages of liquid methamphetamine from Mexico in December 2019 and June 2020.

Although the district court erred when it considered Pliego-Pineda’s supervision of the undercover individual, nearly all of the remaining factors support the district court’s factual findings. Inasmuch as the district court properly applied the enhancement, based on Pliego-Pineda’s argument, the sentence was substantively reasonable.

Affirmed.

United States v. Pliego-Pineda, Case No. 23-4286, Feb. 24, 2025. 4th Cir. (Lewis), from MDNC at Greensboro (Eagles). Seth Allen Neyhart for Appellant. Randall Stuart Galyon for Appellee. 14 pp.