United States v. Hayes , 10 F. App'x 686 ( 2001 )

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
MAR 27 2001
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. No. 00-5143
(D.C. No. 98-CR-174-H)
DONALD LEE HAYES, JR., (N.D. Okla.)
Defendant-Appellant.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before SEYMOUR , BALDOCK , and LUCERO , Circuit Judges.
Donald Lee Hayes, Jr. entered a guilty plea to conspiracy to possess
cocaine base with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846, and was
sentenced to 175 months in prison. He appeals his sentence, arguing that the
district court erred in adding a two-level enhancement to his base offense level
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court
generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order
and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously to grant the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral
argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore
ordered submitted without oral argument.
for playing a leadership or organizational role in a criminal enterprise. Exercising
jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3742 and 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm.
The United States Sentencing Guidelines provide for a two-level sentence
enhancement “[i]f the defendant was an organizer, leader, manager, or supervisor
in any criminal activity.” U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(c) (1998). A district court’s
conclusion on the applicability of § 3B1.1(c) is primarily a legal determination to
be reviewed de novo . United States v. Albers , 93 F.3d 1469, 1487 (10th Cir.
1996).
The “adjustment is included primarily because of concerns about relative
responsibility.” U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1, cmt . background. Thus, “‘ the gravamen of
this enhancement is control, organization, and responsibility for the actions of
other individuals .’” Albers , 93 F.3d at 1488 (quoting United States v. Torres , 53
F.3d 1129, 1142 (10th Cir. 1995)) . “[T]o be a supervisor, one needs merely to
give some form of direction or supervision to someone subordinate in the criminal
activity for which the sentence is given.” United States v. Backas , 901 F.2d 1528,
1530 (10th Cir. 1990). Any degree of direction will satisfy the definition of
“supervision.” United States v. Moore , 919 F.2d 1471, 1477 (10th Cir. 1990).
Moreover, a defendant may be punished as an organizer under § 3B1.1(c), without
supervisory control over others, for “devising a criminal scheme, providing the
wherewithal to accomplish the criminal objective, and coordinating and
-2-
overseeing the implementation of the conspiracy.” United States v.
Valdez-Arieta , 127 F.3d 1267, 1272 (10th Cir. 1997).
In this case, Hayes argues that the sentencing record does not support
the district court’s conclusion that he was a leader or organizer. Testimony at the
sentencing hearing, however, established that Hayes was the individual who set or
negotiated the price of the drugs (III R. at 12, 14–15), directed their manufacture
(id. at 23), and managed the timing and method of delivery of the drugs ( id. at
7–8). As the trial court stated, the evidence indicated that co-defendant Mark
Johnson was “inherently subordinate” to Hayes, not a “coequal[] or equally
situated in a chain of [drug] transactions.” ( Id. at 52.)
Upon our review of the record, we conclude that Hayes’ actions were those
of a leader, organizer, and supervisor. Thus, the district court appropriately
applied U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(c) to enhance Hayes’ sentence. The judgment of the
United States District Court is AFFIRMED .
Entered for the Court
Carlos F. Lucero
Circuit Judge
-3-