United States v. Griffin

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
January 3, 2007
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-10129
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
C. W. GRIFFIN, JR.,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 3:03-CR-306-12
--------------------
Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
C. W. Griffin, Jr., appeals his 57-month sentence for
conspiracy to possess a counterfeit security of an organization
with intent to deceive another person, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§§ 371, 513(a). Although Griffin signed a waiver-of-appeal
provision as part of his written plea agreement and the
Government seeks to enforce that waiver, we pretermit discussion
of the validity of that waiver because Griffin is not entitled to
relief.

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 06-10129
-2-
Griffin argues that the district court erroneously enhanced
his sentence pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(a) for his leadership
role in the offense and argues that the court should instead have
imposed a management enhancement under § 3B1.1(b). Factors that
the court should consider in distinguishing a leadership role
from a management role include “the nature of participation in
the commission of the offense, the recruitment of accomplices,
. . . and the degree of control and authority exercised over
others.” U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1, comment. (n. 4). The presentence
report (PSR), which the district court adopted, states that
Griffin recruited 11 of the conspiracy’s 26 participants, whom he
instructed in the counterfeit check-cashing conspiracy and
transported to banks that he had selected. The PSR also reflects
that Griffin was responsible for recruiting more participants and
directing substantially more activity than were the
organization’s other recruiters.
Because Griffin’s status as a leader or organizer of the
offense is plausible in light of the record as a whole, we find
no clear error. See United States v. Villanueva, 408 F.3d 193,
204 (5th Cir. 2005). The judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --