United States v. Ryan Jamal Washington ( 2021 )


Menu:
  •         USCA11 Case: 20-10872    Date Filed: 04/16/2021   Page: 1 of 7
    [DO NOT PUBLISH]
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
    ________________________
    No. 20-10872
    Non-Argument Calendar
    ________________________
    D.C. Docket No. 2:19-cr-00119-MHH-GMB-3
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    versus
    RYAN JAMAL WASHINGTON,
    a.k.a. Ryan Washington,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    ________________________
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Northern District of Alabama
    ________________________
    (April 16, 2021)
    Before NEWSOM, LUCK, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:
    USCA11 Case: 20-10872       Date Filed: 04/16/2021   Page: 2 of 7
    Ryan Washington appeals his 147-month sentence, arguing that the district
    court miscalculated his advisory guideline range because it erroneously enhanced
    his offense level for being a leader or organizer of a drug conspiracy. We affirm.
    FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
    Washington was charged with conspiracy to distribute marijuana, conspiracy
    to launder money, possession of firearm by a felon, possession of marijuana with the
    intent to distribute, and use of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime.
    He pleaded guilty to all counts. The presentence report calculated his advisory
    guideline range using a four-level enhancement under guideline section 3B1.1(a) for
    being an organizer or leader of the drug conspiracy.
    Washington objected to being characterized as “an organizer or leader,” but
    he did not object to the bulk of the offense conduct in the presentence report. The
    district court overruled Washington’s leader-organizer objection based on the facts
    he did not object to in the presentence report and the testimony of Special Agent
    Gabriel Brooks.
    Here are the unobjected-to facts and testimony. In January 2019, the
    government began investigating Steven Gadson for marijuana trafficking. Gadson
    was arrested, and while in jail, he called Washington. In that call, Washington and
    Gadson “discussed continuing the operation of trafficking marijuana from California
    to Alabama with Washington kind of leading it off or taking over what Gadson had
    2
    USCA11 Case: 20-10872        Date Filed: 04/16/2021   Page: 3 of 7
    already put in place.” Washington gave Gadson the new phone number for Gadson’s
    marijuana supplier, whom Gadson had introduced to Washington prior to Gadson’s
    arrest. After Washington and Gadson ended their call, Gadson called the supplier
    with the new number and told the supplier that Washington “would take over” in
    Gadson’s place while he was incarcerated.
    As part of this post-arrest reorganization, Washington sent runners to bring
    the marijuana from California to be resold in Alabama. Once the marijuana was
    sold, Washington would drop off money with Gadson’s girlfriend, who was in
    charge of the conspiracy’s finances.
    In March 2019, Washington left Birmingham, went to the area around the
    Atlanta airport, and then immediately turned around and headed back to
    Birmingham. When police tried to stop Washington’s car, he turned off the lights
    and fled at over a hundred miles per hour. Washington was eventually taken into
    custody and his car was searched. Inside Washington’s car were eighty-four one-
    pound vacuum-sealed packages of marijuana, personal belongings, a computer, a
    couple thousand dollars in cash, and luggage tags for the Birmingham and Atlanta
    airports that did not have Washington’s name on them.
    The next morning agents searched Washington’s home. They found over
    $35,000, documents related to recent travel for purposes of marijuana trafficking,
    marijuana packaging materials, and several firearms—some stolen. Some black and
    3
    USCA11 Case: 20-10872     Date Filed: 04/16/2021    Page: 4 of 7
    clear vacuum sealed bags were found empty and in the trash, which the agents
    believed had “at one time contained marijuana based on the impressions.”
    The district court sentenced Washington to 147 months’ imprisonment.
    Washington appeals the leader-organizer enhancement.
    STANDARD OF REVIEW
    We review for clear error the district court’s finding that the defendant played
    a leadership role in the criminal offense. United States v. Dixon, 
    901 F.3d 1322
    ,
    1347 (11th Cir. 2018). Clear error review is deferential and “we will not disturb a
    district court’s findings unless we are left with a definite and firm conviction that a
    mistake has been committed.” United States v. Ghertler, 
    605 F.3d 1256
    , 1267 (11th
    Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks omitted).
    DISCUSSION
    Washington argues that the district court clearly erred in finding that he was
    a leader or organizer of the drug conspiracy because he was no more than a courier
    and did not lead or supervise anyone. We disagree.
    The sentencing guidelines call for a four-level increase in the defendant’s
    offense level “[i]f [he] was an organizer or leader of a criminal activity that involved
    five or more participants or was otherwise extensive.” U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(a). We
    consider several factors when determining whether the defendant was an organizer
    or leader:
    4
    USCA11 Case: 20-10872         Date Filed: 04/16/2021   Page: 5 of 7
    (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.
    United States v. Shabazz, 
    887 F.3d 1204
    , 1222 (11th Cir. 2018). But all the factors
    need not be present. United States v. Caraballo, 
    595 F.3d 1214
    , 1231 (11th Cir.
    2010). And the guidelines “require[] only evidence that the defendant exerted some
    control, influence or decision-making authority over another participant in the
    criminal activity.” Dixon, 901 F.3d at 1348. More than one person involved in the
    activity can qualify as a leader. Id.
    The district court did not clearly err in finding that Washington was an
    organizer or leader. Washington spoke with Gadson in February 2019 about taking
    over the marijuana distribution scheme and gave Gadson the supplier’s new phone
    number. Gadson told the supplier that Washington would take over. Together,
    Gadson and Washington developed a new plan to transport marijuana “via horse
    trailers on the interstate.” And, as part of the plan, Washington directed runners to
    go to California and bring back the marijuana to Birmingham so it could be resold.
    See United States v. Ndiaye, 
    434 F.3d 1270
    , 1304 (11th Cir. 2006) (affirming the
    district court’s leader-organizer finding because “the record reflect[ed] that [the
    defendant] exercised authority over the organization by recruiting and instructing
    co-conspirators”); United States v. Baggett, 
    954 F.2d 674
    , 678 (11th Cir. 1992)
    5
    USCA11 Case: 20-10872       Date Filed: 04/16/2021    Page: 6 of 7
    (explaining that the defendant would have received the leader enhancement because
    he recruited someone to deliver a drug shipment for the conspiracy, but that the
    conspiracy had fewer than five participants).
    Washington argues that there was other evidence in the record that showed he
    was no more than a courier and Gadson’s girlfriend handled the money. But those
    facts do not contradict that Washington had control, influence, and decision-making
    authority over others in the conspiracy. See Dixon, 901 F.3d at 1348. And the fact
    that there is contrary evidence does not mean that the district court’s finding that
    Washington was a leader or organizer was clear error. The district court reviewed
    the contrary evidence and still found that Washington had control over the other
    conspirators. See United States v. Cruickshank, 
    837 F.3d 1182
    , 1192 (11th Cir.
    2016) (“The district court’s choice between two permissible views of the evidence
    as to the defendant’s role in the offense will rarely constitute clear error so long as
    the basis of the trial court’s decision is supported by the record and does not involve
    a misapplication of a rule of law.” (internal quotation marks removed) (alteration
    adopted) (quoting United States v. De Varon, 
    175 F.3d 930
    , 945 (11th Cir. 1999)
    (en banc))).
    The unobjected-to facts in the presentence report and the testimony at the
    sentencing hearing were sufficient evidence to establish that Washington was an
    organizer or leader in the marijuana trafficking conspiracy. See United States v.
    6
    USCA11 Case: 20-10872        Date Filed: 04/16/2021    Page: 7 of 7
    Polar, 
    369 F.3d 1248
    , 1255 (11th Cir. 2004) (holding that the sentencing court may
    base its factual findings “for purposes of sentencing . . . on, among other things, . . .
    undisputed statements in the [presentence report], or evidence presented during the
    sentencing hearing.”) The district court did not err in applying the enhancement and,
    thus, we affirm Washington’s sentence.
    AFFIRMED.
    7