Case: 12-13403 Date Filed: 06/06/2013 Page: 1 of 4
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 12-13403
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 2:11-cr-14054-JEM-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
GEOVANI ALEXANDER SALES,
a.k.a. Geovani Alexander Sales-Velasquez,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(June 6, 2013)
Before TJOFLAT, PRYOR and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 12-13403 Date Filed: 06/06/2013 Page: 2 of 4
Geovani Alexander Sales appeals his 97-month total prison sentence
imposed after he pled guilty to conspiracy to commit robbery, in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 1951(a); carrying and possessing a firearm in furtherance of a crime of
violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A), (o); and illegal reentry into the
United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a)(1), (b)(1). Sales contends the
district court erred in applying a two-level aggravating-role enhancement, pursuant
to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(c), because the facts are insufficient to support the
enhancement.
Section 3B1.1(c) provides a two-level increase “[i]f the defendant was an
organizer, leader, manager, or supervisor in any criminal activity” that involved
fewer than five participants or was not “otherwise extensive” within the meaning
of § 3B1.1(a) and (b). U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(c). A defendant’s assertion of control
over only one other participant is sufficient to sustain a § 3B1.1(c) role
enhancement. Id. § 3B1.1, comment. (n.2); United States v. Mandhai, 375
F.3d 1243, 1248 (11th Cir. 2004). A “participant” is a person who is criminally
responsible for the offense, even if not convicted. U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1, comment.
(n.1). In Mandhai, we determined that the district court properly applied a
§ 3B1.1(c) enhancement where the defendant recruited one other individual into a
terrorist plot, prompted that individual to purchase weapons, and briefed him on
the bombing plan. Mandhai, 375 F.3d at 1248.
2
Case: 12-13403 Date Filed: 06/06/2013 Page: 3 of 4
Additionally, the commentary to § 3B1.1 sets out several factors for courts
to consider in determining if one is an organizer or leader, as opposed to a mere
manager or supervisor, including the following: (1) the defendant’s exercise of
decision making authority; (2) recruiting accomplices; (3) the claimed right to a
larger share of the proceeds; (4) the degree of participation in planning or
organizing the crime; and (5) the degree of control and authority exercised over
others. U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1, comment. (n.4).
Sufficient facts support the district court’s application of the § 3B1.1(c)
aggravating-role enhancement. 1 Sales, along with one other participant, organized
and planned the robbery. Sales recruited a third co-conspirator. Similar to the
defendant in Mandhai, who exercised control or influence over a recruit by
prompting him to buy a weapon and briefing him on the bombing plot, Sales
discussed the robbery with his recruit and directed him where and when to drive.
See Mandhai, 375 F.3d at 1248. Additionally, Sales decided how to compensate
each participant from the robbery’s proceeds and planned to keep the bulk of the
1
While Sales contends the Government did not prove the facts relied on for the
enhancement with “reliable and specific evidence,” see United States v. Cataldo, 171 F.3d 1316,
1321 (11th Cir. 1999), Sales admitted the facts as set forth in the PSI at sentencing. See
Sentencing Transcript at 4-5. Thus, the facts were undisputed and met the “reliable and specific
evidence” standard.
3
Case: 12-13403 Date Filed: 06/06/2013 Page: 4 of 4
proceeds for himself. Accordingly, the district court did not clearly err 2 in
determining that Sales was subject to an aggravating-role enhancement under
§ 3B1.1(c). We affirm Sales’ total sentence.
AFFIRMED.
2
We review for clear error the district court’s determination that a defendant is subject to
an aggravating-role enhancement under § 3B1.1(c). United States v. Jiminez, 224 F.3d 1243,
1250-51 (11th Cir. 2000).
4