United States v. Efren Escobar Mendoza , 257 F. App'x 204 ( 2007 )

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
DEC 03, 2007
No. 07-11890 THOMAS K. KAHN
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 06-00227-CR-J-33-MMH
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
EFREN ESCOBAR MENDOZA,
a.k.a. Juan Alberto Ramirez, Jr.,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
_________________________
(December 3, 2007)
Before TJOFLAT, DUBINA and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Appellant Efren Escobar Mendoza appeals his 135-month sentence for
(1) conspiring to distribute 50 grams or more of actual methamphetamine and 500
grams or more of a mixture containing a detectable amount of methamphetamine,
in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A), 846; and (2) possessing with
intent to distribute 50 grams or more of actual methamphetamine and 500 grams or
more of a mixture containing methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A).
Mendoza arranged a drug transaction with a confidential source (“CS”) that
was to take place in Jacksonville, Florida. Mendoza enticed codefendant Sergio
Nazario to accompany him on the trip from Haines City, Florida, to Jacksonville,
Florida, for the drug transaction by offering to forgive a debt that Nazario owed to
Mendoza. Mendoza wanted Nazario to serve as a “lookout” during the drug
transaction and, when the men arrived in Jacksonville, Nazario did serve as a
lookout. Nazario stated that Mendoza told him that the purpose of the trip was to
pick up or deliver money.
On appeal, Mendoza asserts that the district court clearly erred in finding
that he acted as a leader or supervisor in the offense because: (1) he was not
working with or for others who needed additional recruits to ensure the success of
a common and unlawful plan; (2) he merely asked Nazario to accompany him on
the trip to Jacksonville, and Nazario did not know that the purpose of that trip was
2
to deliver drugs; (3) by accompanying Mendoza on the trip, Nazario satisfied his
debt to Mendoza and had no further obligation to assist him; (4) there was no
evidence that Mendoza had physical, verbal, or mental control over Nazario; and
(5) Nazario stood to gain nothing from assisting Mendoza with the drug
transaction.
In a challenge to the application of the guidelines, we review the district
court’s findings of fact for clear error and review the district court’s application of
the guidelines to those facts de novo. United States v. Mandhai, 375 F.3d 1243,
1247 (11th Cir. 2004). The guidelines provide that the sentencing court should
increase a defendant’s offense level by two levels if the defendant was an
organizer, leader, manager, or supervisor in any jointly undertaken criminal
activity that did not involve five or more participants or was not otherwise
extensive. U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(c). A defendant’s “assertion of control or influence
over only one individual is enough to support a § 3B1.1(c) enhancement.” United
States v. Jiminez, 224 F.3d 1243, 1251 (11th Cir. 2000). In Jiminez, we
determined that the district court did not clearly err in finding that the defendant
exercised influence or control over his girlfriend where the evidence showed that
(1) the girlfriend had to consult with the defendant before agreeing to sell drugs;
and (2) the girlfriend consulted with the defendant during her telephone
3
conversations regarding drug transactions. Id. Similarly, evidence that a
defendant recruited one individual is sufficient to support a § 3B1.1(c)
enhancement. See Mandhai, 375 F.3d at 1248. In Mandhai, we held that the
district court did not clearly err by imposing a leadership-role enhancement where
the defendant recruited one individual, prompted him to purchase weapons, and
briefed him on a bombing plot. We observed that “[n]othing more was required”
to establish the enhancement. Id.
Because the record demonstrates that Mendoza (1) recruited Nazario;
(2) exerted influence or control over Nazario; and (3) organized the drug
transaction in which Nazario participated, we conclude that the district court did
not clearly err in finding that Mendoza was a leader in the conspiracy. See
Mandhai, 375 F.3d at 1248; Jiminez, 224 F.3d at 1251; U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(c).
Accordingly, we affirm Mendoza’s sentence.
AFFIRMED.
4