UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
NARRCISO CARRILLO, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT

11th Cir. | 1989-11-14
No. 89-5297
Before KRAVITCH, HATCHETT and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges.
888 F.2d 117 Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (1989) Positive Treatment
Cited by 40 cases
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM:

PER CURIAM:

The sole issue presented in this appeal is whether in applying the sentencing guidelines the district court erred in finding that Carrillo was a “supervisor” or “organizer.” Because we conclude that the finding was not clearly erroneous, we affirm.

Carrillo pled guilty to one count of possessing 80 kilograms of cocaine. The pre-sentence report (“PSI”) computed Carrillo’s initial base offense level as 36, reduced it by two points in recognition of his acceptance of responsibility, but increased it by two points because of his role as a “supervisor” or “organizer.”

In reviewing a sentence imposed under the guidelines, the factual findings of the sentencing court are entitled to great deference and must be accepted unless clearly erroneous. United States v. Spraggins, 868 F. 2d 1541, 1543 (11th Cir.1989); see also United States v. Wilson, 884 F. 2d 1355, 1356-57 (11th Cir.1989). In examining the sentencing court’s determination that a defendant was a “minor” or “minimal” participant, we have used the clearly erroneous standard. United States v. Erves, 880 F. 2d 376, 380-81 (11th Cir.1989); see also United States v. Davis, 878 F. 2d 1299, 1300 (11th Cir.1989). Similarly, in reviewing a finding that the defendant was an “organizer” or “supervisor” under Guideline § 3Bl.l(c), the factual conclusion of the sentencing court should be reversed only if clearly erroneous. See United States v. Wright, 873 F. 2d 437, 444 (1st Cir.1989); United States v. Mejia-Orosco, 867 F. 2d 216 (5th Cir.1989).

Carrillo argues that the findings were clearly erroneous, that he was a fisherman with a fourth grade education, a warehouseman who was himself a subordinate of others, a “supervisor” only “over other similar low level employees in a narcotics distribution ring.” That there were bigger fish in the larger scheme does not, however, absolve Carrillo of the supervisory role he played in managing the “stash house.” There was sufficient evidence regarding Carrillo’s management of the stash house, receipt of cocaine, and distribution of various allotments of cocaine to others to support a finding that he was an “organizer” or “supervisor.” Accordingly, we AFFIRM.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By (18 total)

  • United States v. de Varon, 175 F.3d 930 (11th Cir. 1999)
    …ave held that a district court's determination of whether a defendant has played an aggravating role in the offense under U.S.S.G. § 3B 1.1 is a finding of fact subject to a clearly erroneous standard of review. See, e.g., United States v. Carrillo, 888 F. 2d 117, 118 (11th Cir.1989) (per curiam). Similarly, "[b]ecause the sentencing judge is uniquely positioned to evaluate the defendant’s acceptance of responsibility [under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1],” we have also held that this determination is a factual questio…
  • United States v. Mieres-Borges, 919 F.2d 652 (11th Cir. 1990)
    …offense level based on his minor role in the offense. We have held that a district court’s determina [*663] tion of a defendant’s role in an offense is a finding of fact to which the clearly erroneous standard is applied. United States v. Carrillo, 888 F. 2d 117, 118 (11th Cir.1989) (per curiam) (citations omitted). The district judge found no evidence that Mieres-Borges was any less culpable than his co-defendants. Because we do not find this conclusion to be clearly erroneous, we AFFIRM the district court…
  • United States v. Weaver, 920 F.2d 1570 (11th Cir. 1991)
    …ances of a particular case. I. STANDARDS OF REVIEW This court has not explicitly set out the standards of review applicable to departure cases; however, our earlier cases foreshadow the approach we adopt today. See, e.g., United States v. Carrilo, 888 F. 2d 117, 118 (11th Cir.1989) (district court’s factual findings must be accepted unless clearly erroneous); United States v. Campbell, 888 F. 2d 76, 78-79 (11th Cir.1989) (same); Crawford, 883 F. 2d at 964-66 (exercising de novo review of sentencing court’s…

Previewing 3 of 18 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw