The opinion
USCA11 Case: 24-12769 Document: 26-1 Date Filed: 04/22/2025 Page: 1 of 5
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 24-12769
Non-Argument Calendar
____________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
OMAR JOSUE MORALES-RODRIGUEZ,
Defendant-Appellant.
____________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Florida
D.C. Docket No. 3:23-cr-00073-TKW-1
____________________
USCA11 Case: 24-12769 Document: 26-1 Date Filed: 04/22/2025 Page: 2 of 5
2 Opinion of the Court 24-12769
Before BRANCH. ANDERSON, and DUBINA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Appellant Omar Morales-Rodriguez appeals his 180-month
sentence for conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to dis-
tribute cocaine; distributing and possessing with intent to distrib-
ute cocaine and attempting to do the same; possessing cocaine with
intent to distribute; and being a felon in possession of a firearm. He
argues that the district court clearly erred when it determined that
he qualified for an aggravating-role enhancement under U.S.S.G.
§ 3B1.1(b). Having reviewed the record and read the parties’ briefs,
we affirm Morales-Rodriguez’s sentence.
I.
We review a district court’s decision to apply an aggravat-
ing-role adjustment under § 3B1.1(b) for clear error. United States
v. Sosa, 777 F.3d 1279, 1300 (11th Cir. 2015). A trial court does not
commit clear error when its decision is based on a permissible view
of the evidence. See United States v. Rodriguez De Varon, 175 F.3d
930, 945 (11th Cir. 1999).
II.
When a defendant challenges one of the factual bases of his
sentence, the government has the burden of establishing the dis-
puted fact by a preponderance of the evidence. United States v. Mar-
tinez, 584 F.3d 1022, 1027 (11th Cir. 2009). The sentencing court
may base its findings on “evidence heard during trial, facts
USCA11 Case: 24-12769 Document: 26-1 Date Filed: 04/22/2025 Page: 3 of 5
24-12769 Opinion of the Court 3
admitted by a defendant’s plea of guilty, undisputed statements in
the presentence report, or evidence presented at the sentencing
hearing.” United States v. Wilson, 884 F.2d 1355, 1356 (11th Cir.
1989).
The Sentencing Guidelines provide for a three-level increase
“[i]f the defendant was a manager or supervisor (but not an organ-
izer or leader) and the criminal activity involved five or more par-
ticipants or was otherwise extensive.” U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(b). A de-
fendant need only manage or supervise one other participant in the
criminal activity for the increase to apply. Sosa, 777 F.3d at 1301.
“[T]here must be evidence that the defendant exerted some con-
trol, influence or decision-making authority over another partici-
pant in the criminal activity.” Martinez, 584 F.3d at 1026. A partic-
ipant is criminally responsible for the offense, even if they have not
been convicted. Sosa, 777 F.3d at 1301.
The commentary to U.S.S.G. §3B1.1(b) provides several fac-
tors that courts should consider in determining whether a defend-
ant had a leadership and organizational role or mere management
or supervision. Those factors include, among others, the defend-
ant’s exercise of decision-making authority, the recruitment of ac-
complices, the claimed right to a larger share of the “fruits of the
crime,” the degree of the participation in the planning or organiz-
ing of the offense, and the degree of control and authority exercised
over others involved in the offense. U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1, comment.
(n.4). “There is no requirement that all the considerations have to
be present in any one case.” United States v. Ramirez, 426 F.3d 1344,
USCA11 Case: 24-12769 Document: 26-1 Date Filed: 04/22/2025 Page: 4 of 5
4 Opinion of the Court 24-12769
1356 (11th Cir. 2005). Rather, “these factors are merely considera-
tions for the sentencing judge, who makes the factual determina-
tions for the applicability of the § 3B.1 enhancement on a case-by-
case basis.” Id.
III.
We conclude that the district court did not commit clear er-
ror because the evidence supported the conclusion that Morales-
Rodriguez exercised control over at least one other person and the
criminal activity involved five or more people. The record demon-
strates that Morales-Rodriguez recruited, instructed, and managed
multiple individuals to have packages delivered to them in ex-
change for cash or drugs. He instructed the individuals to provide
their addresses for the shipments, and he directed his co-conspira-
tors in Puerto Rico to ship the packages of cocaine to these ad-
dresses. As such, Morales-Rodriguez managed the deliveries of the
cocaine, directed his co-defendants and other individuals to accept
and retrieve the packages, and instructed them to deliver the pack-
ages to his wife or himself.
At the sentencing hearing, the government provided state-
ments from the confidential source and the co-defendants to cor-
roborate the criminal activity. The government also presented ev-
idence that authorities recovered small quantities of cocaine from
the co-defendants following traffic stops authorities conducted af-
ter the co-defendants met with Morales-Rodriguez. The evidence
also showed that Morales-Rodriguez was the only participant the
authorities stopped who had one kilogram of cocaine in his
USCA11 Case: 24-12769 Document: 26-1 Date Filed: 04/22/2025 Page: 5 of 5
24-12769 Opinion of the Court 5
possession. Based on the totality of the evidence, we conclude that
the district court did not err in applying the enhancement because
the evidence was sufficient to support the three-level enhance-
ment.
Accordingly, for the aforementioned reasons, we affirm Mo-
rales-Rodriguez’s 180-month sentence.
AFFIRMED.