United States v. Arroyo-Gomez , 443 F. App'x 471 ( 2011 )


Menu:
  •                                                           [DO NOT PUBLISH]
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT           FILED
    ________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
    No. 10-15430                       OCTOBER 19, 2011
    Non-Argument Calendar                     JOHN LEY
    CLERK
    ________________________
    D.C. Docket No. 1:08-cr-00488-JEC-ECS-1
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff-Appellee,
    versus
    ARIEL BLANCO ARROYO-GOMEZ,
    a.k.a. Blanco,
    llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllDefendant-Appellant.
    ________________________
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Northern District of Georgia
    ________________________
    (October 19, 2011)
    Before EDMONDSON, CARNES and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:
    Ariel Blanco Arroyo-Gomez appeals his 180-month sentence for conspiracy
    to possess with intent to distribute at least 5 kilograms of cocaine, 500 grams of
    methamphetamine, and less than 50 kilograms of marijuana, in violation of
    
    21 U.S.C. § 846
     and § 841(b)(1)(A)(ii), (vii) and (b)(1)(D). Arroyo-Gomez
    contends that the district court erred by applying a two-level enhancement for his
    role in the offense as “an organizer, leader, manager, or supervisor.” U.S.S.G. §
    3B1.1(c). He argues that the government presented no evidence at his sentence
    hearing to support a finding that he acted in a supervisory or managerial capacity.
    A district court’s determination that a defendant is subject to a § 3B1.1 role
    enhancement is a finding of fact that we review only for clear error. United States
    v. Ramirez, 
    426 F.3d 1344
    , 1355 (11th Cir. 2005). The sentencing guidelines
    provide for a two-level enhancement “[i]f the defendant was an organizer, leader,
    manager, or supervisor” in the criminal activity. U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(c). In
    assessing the defendant’s role in the offense, the court should consider factors
    such as the exercise of decision-making authority, the recruitment of accomplices,
    the claimed right to a larger share of the fruits of the crime, the degree of
    participation in planning and organizing, and the degree of control or authority
    exercised over others. Id. § 3B1.1 cmt. n.4.
    In the present case Special Agent Alex Ascencio testified at the sentence
    2
    hearing that recorded phone calls established that Arroyo-Gomez instructed co-
    conspirator Aaron Cruz to facilitate drug deals and help get customers. Also, Cruz
    called Arroyo-Gomez to get materials to “cut the drugs.” In one particular call,
    Cruz asked Arroyo-Gomez whether he had a supply of drugs available for him.
    Arroyo-Gomez responded that he needed to cut the drugs, and he told Cruz to wait
    at his current location. Agent Ascencio testified about another conversation in
    which Arroyo-Gomez instructed Cruz to show a buyer a quarter kilogram of
    cocaine, emphasizing that the group “needed to get something out of it.” Cruz’s
    dependence on Arroyo-Gomez for a supply of drugs, materials to cut them, and
    instructions about selling them establishes Arroyo-Gomez’s control or leadership
    over him, and “[t]he assertion of control or influence over only one individual is
    enough to support a § 3B1.1(c) enhancement.” United States v. Perry, 
    340 F.3d 1216
    , 1217 (11th Cir. 2003) (alteration omitted).
    The district court also heard testimony that Arroyo-Gomez made other
    arrangements for drug deals and negotiated prices, including setting the terms of a
    five-pound methamphetamine deal. That evidence supports the district court’s
    finding that the § 3B1.1(c) enhancement was applicable. See United States v.
    Stanley, 
    24 F.3d 1314
    , 1323 (11th Cir. 1994) (holding that evidence that the
    defendant negotiated the price of the drugs and made arrangements for the drug
    3
    transaction was enough to establish that he had acted in a managerial capacity);
    see also United States v. Matthews, 
    168 F.3d 1234
    , 1249 (11th Cir. 1999)
    (explaining that “[i]n a drug distribution case . . . the management enhancement
    is appropriate for a defendant who arranges drug transactions, negotiates sales
    with others, and hires others to work for the conspiracy”). The district court did
    not clearly err by finding that the two-level enhancement applied to Arroyo-
    Gomez.
    AFFIRMED.
    4
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 10-15430

Citation Numbers: 443 F. App'x 471

Judges: Edmondson, Carnes, Kravitch

Filed Date: 10/19/2011

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024