affirming the district court’s leader-organizer finding because “the record reflect[ed] that [the defendant] exercised authority over the organization by recruiting and instructing co-conspirators”
How later courts described this case
- affirming the district court’s leader-organizer finding because “the record reflect[ed] that [the defendant] exercised authority over the organization by recruiting and instructing co-conspirators”
- holding that the sentencing court may base its factual findings “for purposes of sentencing . . . on, among other things, . . . undisputed statements in the [presentence report], or evidence presented during the sentencing hearing.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
USCA11 Case: 20-10872 Date Filed: 04/16/2021 Page: 1 of 7
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 20-10872
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 2:19-cr-00119-MHH-GMB-3
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
RYAN JAMAL WASHINGTON,
a.k.a. Ryan Washington,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Alabama
________________________
(April 16, 2021)
Before NEWSOM, LUCK, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
USCA11 Case: 20-10872 Date Filed: 04/16/2021 Page: 2 of 7
Ryan Washington appeals his 147-month sentence, arguing that the district
court miscalculated his advisory guideline range because it erroneously enhanced
his offense level for being a leader or organizer of a drug conspiracy. We affirm.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Washington was charged with conspiracy to distribute marijuana, conspiracy
to launder money, possession of firearm by a felon, possession of marijuana with the
intent to distribute, and use of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime.
He pleaded guilty to all counts. The presentence report calculated his advisory
guideline range using a four-level enhancement under guideline section 3B1.1(a) for
being an organizer or leader of the drug conspiracy.
Washington objected to being characterized as “an organizer or leader,” but
he did not object to the bulk of the offense conduct in the presentence report. The
district court overruled Washington’s leader-organizer objection based on the facts
he did not object to in the presentence report and the testimony of Special Agent
Gabriel Brooks.
Here are the unobjected-to facts and testimony. In January 2019, the
government began investigating Steven Gadson for marijuana trafficking. Gadson
was arrested, and while in jail, he called Washington. In that call, Washington and
Gadson “discussed continuing the operation of trafficking marijuana from California
to Alabama with Washington kind of leading it off or taking over what Gadson had
2
USCA11 Case: 20-10872 Date Filed: 04/16/2021 Page: 3 of 7
already put in place.” Washington gave Gadson the new phone number for Gadson’s
marijuana supplier, whom Gadson had introduced to Washington prior to Gadson’s
arrest. After Washington and Gadson ended their call, Gadson called the supplier
with the new number and told the supplier that Washington “would take over” in
Gadson’s place while he was incarcerated.
As part of this post-arrest reorganization, Washington sent runners to bring
the marijuana from California to be resold in Alabama. Once the marijuana was
sold, Washington would drop off money with Gadson’s girlfriend, who was in
charge of the conspiracy’s finances.
In March 2019, Washington left Birmingham, went to the area around the
Atlanta airport, and then immediately turned around and headed back to
Birmingham. When police tried to stop Washington’s car, he turned off the lights
and fled at over a hundred miles per hour. Washington was eventually taken into
custody and his car was searched. Inside Washington’s car were eighty-four one-
pound vacuum-sealed packages of marijuana, personal belongings, a computer, a
couple thousand dollars in cash, and luggage tags for the Birmingham and Atlanta
airports that did not have Washington’s name on them.
The next morning agents searched Washington’s home. They found over
$35,000, documents related to recent travel for purposes of marijuana trafficking,
marijuana packaging materials, and several firearms—some stolen. Some black and
3
USCA11 Case: 20-10872 Date Filed: 04/16/2021 Page: 4 of 7
clear vacuum sealed bags were found empty and in the trash, which the agents
believed had “at one time contained marijuana based on the impressions.”
The district court sentenced Washington to 147 months’ imprisonment.
Washington appeals the leader-organizer enhancement.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
We review for clear error the district court’s finding that the defendant played
a leadership role in the criminal offense. United States v. Dixon, 901 F.3d 1322,
1347 (11th Cir. 2018). Clear error review is deferential and “we will not disturb a
district court’s findings unless we are left with a definite and firm conviction that a
mistake has been committed.” United States v. Ghertler, 605 F.3d 1256, 1267 (11th
Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks omitted).
DISCUSSION
Washington argues that the district court clearly erred in finding that he was
a leader or organizer of the drug conspiracy because he was no more than a courier
and did not lead or supervise anyone. We disagree.
The sentencing guidelines call for a four-level increase in the defendant’s
offense level “[i]f [he] was an organizer or leader of a criminal activity that involved
five or more participants or was otherwise extensive.” U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(a). We
consider several factors when determining whether the defendant was an organizer
or leader:
4
USCA11 Case: 20-10872 Date Filed: 04/16/2021 Page: 5 of 7
(1) the exercise of decision[-]making authority, (2) the nature of
participation in the commission of the offense, (3) the recruitment of
accomplices, (4) the claimed right to a larger share of the fruits of the
crime, (5) the degree of participation in planning or organizing the
offense, (6) the nature and scope of the illegal activity, and (7) the
degree of control and authority exercised over others.
United States v. Shabazz, 887 F.3d 1204, 1222 (11th Cir. 2018). But all the factors
need not be present. United States v. Caraballo, 595 F.3d 1214, 1231 (11th Cir.
2010). And the guidelines “require[] only evidence that the defendant exerted some
control, influence or decision-making authority over another participant in the
criminal activity.” Dixon, 901 F.3d at 1348. More than one person involved in the
activity can qualify as a leader. Id.
The district court did not clearly err in finding that Washington was an
organizer or leader. Washington spoke with Gadson in February 2019 about taking
over the marijuana distribution scheme and gave Gadson the supplier’s new phone
number. Gadson told the supplier that Washington would take over. Together,
Gadson and Washington developed a new plan to transport marijuana “via horse
trailers on the interstate.” And, as part of the plan, Washington directed runners to
go to California and bring back the marijuana to Birmingham so it could be resold.
See United States v. Ndiaye, 434 F.3d 1270, 1304 (11th Cir. 2006) (affirming the
district court’s leader-organizer finding because “the record reflect[ed] that [the
defendant] exercised authority over the organization by recruiting and instructing
co-conspirators”); United States v. Baggett, 954 F.2d 674, 678 (11th Cir. 1992)
5
USCA11 Case: 20-10872 Date Filed: 04/16/2021 Page: 6 of 7
(explaining that the defendant would have received the leader enhancement because
he recruited someone to deliver a drug shipment for the conspiracy, but that the
conspiracy had fewer than five participants).
Washington argues that there was other evidence in the record that showed he
was no more than a courier and Gadson’s girlfriend handled the money. But those
facts do not contradict that Washington had control, influence, and decision-making
authority over others in the conspiracy. See Dixon, 901 F.3d at 1348. And the fact
that there is contrary evidence does not mean that the district court’s finding that
Washington was a leader or organizer was clear error. The district court reviewed
the contrary evidence and still found that Washington had control over the other
conspirators. See United States v. Cruickshank, 837 F.3d 1182, 1192 (11th Cir.
2016) (“The district court’s choice between two permissible views of the evidence
as to the defendant’s role in the offense will rarely constitute clear error so long as
the basis of the trial court’s decision is supported by the record and does not involve
a misapplication of a rule of law.” (internal quotation marks removed) (alteration
adopted) (quoting United States v. De Varon, 175 F.3d 930, 945 (11th Cir. 1999)
(en banc))).
The unobjected-to facts in the presentence report and the testimony at the
sentencing hearing were sufficient evidence to establish that Washington was an
organizer or leader in the marijuana trafficking conspiracy. See United States v.
6
USCA11 Case: 20-10872 Date Filed: 04/16/2021 Page: 7 of 7
Polar, 369 F.3d 1248, 1255 (11th Cir. 2004) (holding that the sentencing court may
base its factual findings “for purposes of sentencing . . . on, among other things, . . .
undisputed statements in the [presentence report], or evidence presented during the
sentencing hearing.”) The district court did not err in applying the enhancement and,
thus, we affirm Washington’s sentence.
AFFIRMED.
7