United States v. Miguel Bracamontes , 464 F. App'x 157 ( 2012 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-4162
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MIGUEL BRACAMONTES, a/k/a Miguel Rayo Bracamontes, a/k/a
Miguel Bracamontes-Rayo, a/k/a Reinaldo Palomares,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (7:10-cr-00030-F-1)
Submitted: January 23, 2012 Decided: February 7, 2012
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
David L. Neal, Hillsborough, North Carolina, for Appellant.
Thomas G. Walker, United States Attorney, Jennifer P. May-
Parker, Kristine L. Fritz, Assistant United States Attorneys,
Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Miguel Bracamontes appeals the 364-month sentence of
imprisonment imposed by the district court following his guilty
pleas to conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to
distribute 500 grams or more of methamphetamine in violation of
21 U.S.C. § 846 (2006), conspiracy to distribute and possess
with intent to distribute a quantity of cocaine and fifty grams
or more of cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846,
possession with intent to distribute a quantity of cocaine and
fifty grams or more of cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A) and 18 U.S.C. § 2 (2006), and improper
entry by an alien in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1325(a) (2006). On
appeal, Bracamontes contends that the district court committed
clear error by finding that he occupied a leadership or
organizational role in the offense and imposing a four-level
increase in his offense level pursuant to U.S. Sentencing
Guidelines Manual (“USSG”) § 3B1.1(a) (2010). In support,
Bracamontes argues that the district court’s relevant findings
were not supported by the evidence, and its additional findings
were not relevant to the seven factors that a court must
consider before imposing an increased sentence for a leadership
role in the offense. We affirm.
A sentencing court’s ruling on the aggravated role
adjustment under USSG § 3B1.1 is a factual determination that we
2
review for clear error. United States v. Llamas, 599 F.3d 381,
389 (4th Cir. 2010).
Under USSG § 3B1.1(a), a four-level increase in a
defendant’s offense level is warranted “if the defendant was an
organizer or leader of a criminal activity that involved five or
more participants or was otherwise extensive.” USSG § 3B1.1(a).
To qualify for the four-level adjustment, “the defendant must
have been the organizer or leader of one or more participants as
opposed to merely exercising management responsibility over the
property, assets, or activities of a criminal organization.”
United States v. Cameron, 573 F.3d 179, 184 (4th Cir. 2009)
(citing USSG § 3B1.1 cmt. n.2) (internal quotation marks and
alteration omitted). In determining whether a defendant played
an organizational or leadership role in the offense, courts are
required by the Sentencing Guidelines to consider:
[(1)] the exercise of decision making authority, [(2)]
the nature of the 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.
USSG § 3B1.1, cmt. n.4.
After reviewing the record, we conclude that the
district court properly considered the relevant factors under
USSG § 3B1.1, cmt. n.4, and the evidence in the record amply
3
supports its finding that Bracamontes was an organizer or leader
in the offense. Accordingly, we conclude that the district
court did not clearly err by imposing the four-level enhancement
under USSG § 3B1.1(a).
We affirm the judgment below. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before the court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
4