U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, 1989

United States v. Narrciso Carrillo

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Decided November 14, 1989 · Kravitch, Hatchett, Edmondson

888 F.2d 117; 1989 U.S. App. LEXIS 16966; 1989 WL 126539 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Leonard A. Sands, Sands & Moskowitz, P.A., Coconut Grove, Fla., for defendant-appellant., Dexter Lehtinen, U.S. Atty., Linda Collins-Hertz, Sonia Escobio O’Donnell, and Carol E. Herman, Miami, Fla., for plaintiff-appellee.

Cases that cite this one

25 later published cases cite this decision. The 24 that cite it most often are listed here.

United States v. Santiago Mares-Molina (9th Cir. 1990)
United States v. Roger Skinner (7th Cir. 1993)
United States v. Isabel Rodriguez De Varon (11th Cir. 1999)
United States v. James T. Weaver (11th Cir. 1991)
United States v. Elsa Ramos and Jairo Ramos (7th Cir. 1991)
United States of America, Cross-Appellant v. Anthony Chotas, Cross-Appellee (11th Cir. 1990)
United States v. Roberto Mieres-Borges and Osvaldo Becerra-Flores (11th Cir. 1990)
United States v. Glover (11th Cir. 1999)
United States v. Glover (11th Cir. 1999)
United States v. De Varon (11th Cir. 1998)
United States v. De Varon (11th Cir. 1998)
United States v. Agustin Flores-Sandoval (7th Cir. 1996)
United States v. Richard Williams and William Scott Hames (11th Cir. 1995)
United States v. David Wayne Holland, Cross-Appellee (11th Cir. 1994)
Aromatique, Inc., Appellee/cross-Appellant v. Gold Seal, Inc., and Darrell Bufford, Appellants/cross-Appellees (8th Cir. 1994)
United States v. Bernard Chris Costales, Cross-Appellee (11th Cir. 1993)
United States v. Juan Cebreros-Iribe (9th Cir. 1992)
United States v. Ira Simmons (11th Cir. 1991)
United States v. Jones (11th Cir. 1991)
United States v. Rios, Appeal of Luis Guillermo Rios, A/K/A "Memo" (2d Cir. 1990)
United States v. Douglas Mark Pritchett, Phillip Doyle Boothe, David E. Pritchett, Joseph C. Pritchett, Rhonda Pritchett (Reinstated) (11th Cir. 1990)
United States v. Stanko Markovic, Mijodrag Petrovic (11th Cir. 1990)
United States v. Jesus Castillo-Valencia, and Jose Pulido-Gomez (11th Cir. 1990)
United States v. Willie Frank Wyckoff (11th Cir. 1990)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

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 *118 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.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.