United States v. Nathaniel Spates, aka Monkey Clyde, aka Black , 426 F. App'x 724 ( 2011 )

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________ FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-13674
MAY 10, 2011
Non-Argument Calendar
JOHN LEY
________________________ CLERK
D.C. Docket No. 0:09-cr-60260-WPD-4
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
NATHANIEL SPATES,
a.k.a. Monkey Clyde,
a.k.a. Black,
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(May 10, 2011)
Before BARKETT, HULL and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Nathaniel Spates appeals his 126-month sentence for conspiracy to possess
with intent to distribute cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. On appeal,
Spates argues that the district court erred in applying a three-level sentencing
enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(b) based on a finding that Spates acted as a
“manager or supervisor” of criminal activity that involved five or more
participants.
On this record, we cannot say the district court clearly erred in determining
that Spates played a managerial role in the conspiracy for which he was
convicted.1 The government presented evidence demonstrating that while Spates
was incarcerated for an unrelated offense, and for a period following his
incarceration, he directed several of his co-conspirators to sell drugs to his former
clients. Spates argues on appeal that the evidence showed only that he suggested
to his family and friends that they sell cocaine to one of his clients while he was
incarcerated, without managing them in their attempts to do so. However, the
record reflects Spates was actively involved in the drug transactions committed by
his co-conspirators outside of his presence, that he communicated with them about
1
While we review de novo the district court’s interpretation and application of the
Sentencing Guidelines, United States v. Barakat, 130 F.3d 1448, 1452 (11th Cir. 1997), the
district court’s determination of a defendant’s role in an offense is a finding of fact that we
review for clear error, United States v. De Varon, 175 F.3d 930, 937 (11th Cir.1999) (en banc).
2
the transactions, and that they conducted these drug sales on Spates’s behalf.
Accordingly, the district court finding that Spates was eligible for a three-level
increase as manager of the scheme was not clearly erroneous, and we affirm his
sentence.
AFFIRMED.
3