PUBLISHED
`
`UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
`FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
`
`
`No. 23-4286
`
`Plaintiff – Appellee,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
`
`
`
`
`
`OSCAR PLIEGO-PINEDA,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant – Appellant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
`Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles, Chief District Judge. (1:20-cr-00272-CCE-1)
`
`
`Argued: November 1, 2024
`
`
`
`Decided: February 24, 2025
`
`
`
`Before WYNN and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and Mary Geiger LEWIS, United States
`District Judge for the District of South Carolina, sitting by designation.
`
`
`Affirmed by published opinion. Judge Lewis wrote the opinion, in which Judge Wynn and
`Judge Rushing joined.
`
`
`
`
`ARGUED: Seth Allen Neyhart, LAW OFFICE OF SETH A. NEYHART, Durham, North
`Carolina, for Appellant. Randall Stuart Galyon, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
`ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Sandra J. Hairston,
`United States Attorney, Julie C. Niemeier, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF
`THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`MARY GEIGER LEWIS, District Judge:
`
`
`
`Oscar Pliego-Pineda (Pliego-Pineda), who pled guilty to two counts of conspiracy,
`
`appeals the 120-month sentence imposed by the district court. On appeal, Pliego-Pineda
`
`argues (1) the district court clearly erred in applying a three-level managerial role
`
`enhancement under the United States Sentencing Commission Guidelines Manual
`
`(Guidelines) and (2) his sentence is substantively unreasonable given the district court’s
`
`error. For the following reasons, we affirm.
`
`I.
`
`
`
`In 2019, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and Drug Enforcement
`
`Administration (DEA), in cooperation with local law enforcement agencies, commenced
`
`an investigation into a Mexican drug trafficking organization, which was operating in
`
`Mexico, California, Georgia, and North Carolina. Early in the investigation, they identified
`
`Pliego-Pineda, of Atlanta, Georgia, as the organization’s “drug connection” in Atlanta.
`
`J.A. at 169.
`
`During the investigation, Pliego-Pineda coordinated the logistics for several multi-
`
`kilogram methamphetamine deliveries to a confidential source from the FBI (CS) and an
`
`undercover employee of the DEA (UC). Pliego-Pineda also arranged for large amounts of
`
`drug proceeds to be wired into a Wells Fargo bank account bearing his wife’s name.
`
`In September 2019, a Mexican source offered to sell the CS up to thirty pounds of
`
`methamphetamine. The parties agreed to an initial sale of one kilogram, which was to be
`
`arranged by Pliego-Pineda in Atlanta. The CS traveled to Atlanta, where Pliego-Pineda
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`coordinated delivery of the methamphetamine through his courier, Francisco Yesdirguer
`
`Santana Pineda (Pineda).
`
`Satisfied with the quality of the drugs, the CS subsequently asked the Mexican
`
`source about ordering a larger shipment. The Mexican source informed the CS the “guy
`
`in Atlanta,” Pliego-Pineda, would need to trust the CS before a larger deal could be
`
`arranged. J.A. at 170.
`
`The CS then called Pliego-Pineda, who instructed the CS to return to Atlanta one
`
`more time to make a purchase. Pliego-Pineda said he wanted to ensure the money was
`
`there before sending a large shipment of drugs to North Carolina.
`
`The CS and Pliego-Pineda decided to meet on October 8, 2019, at a Mexican
`
`restaurant in Atlanta. The UC went with the CS to the meeting, during which Pliego-
`
`Pineda delivered one kilogram of methamphetamine in exchange for $5,000. Also during
`
`the meeting, Pliego-Pineda and the CS discussed future deliveries of methamphetamine to
`
`Greensboro, North Carolina. They agreed upon a price of $6,000 per kilogram, and Pliego-
`
`Pineda told the CS he would later instruct the CS and UC on where to wire the drug
`
`proceeds.
`
`The CS and Pliego-Pineda had several conversations over the next couple months
`
`concerning a larger shipment to Greensboro. Pliego-Pineda informed the CS shipping
`
`methamphetamine in liquid form (soap) directly from Mexico would lessen the costs of
`
`transporting crystal methamphetamine from Atlanta to Greensboro. According to Pliego-
`
`Pineda,
`
`the soap would convert
`
`to approximately
`
`two kilograms of crystal
`
`methamphetamine. The CS agreed.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`On December 3, 2019, Pliego-Pineda advised the CS the soap had been shipped
`
`from San Juan Del Rio, Queretaro, Mexico, to North Carolina and was ready for delivery.
`
`The following day, Pliego-Pineda’s courier, co-defendant Wences Mondragon-Penaloza
`
`(Mondragon-Penaloza), delivered a seventeen-kilogram package containing 170 bars to the
`
`UC in Winston-Salem, North Carolina. Pliego-Pineda informed the CS he would send
`
`someone to Greensboro to teach the CS how to convert the soap into crystal
`
`methamphetamine. Subsequently, two individuals in Mexico gave the CS step-by-step
`
`conversion instructions.
`
`Soon after this delivery, Pliego-Pineda asked the CS to pay Mondragon-Penaloza
`
`$200 for receiving the shipment from Mexico and delivering it to North Carolina. The UC
`
`later met with Mondragon-Penaloza and paid him $200. But, the CS and UC had yet to
`
`pay for the actual shipment.
`
`On or about December 27, 2019, Pliego-Pineda asked the UC to pay $2,000 for the
`
`soap package. Pliego-Pineda provided the UC with a Wells Fargo bank account number
`
`bearing his wife’s name. The UC wired $2,000 to the account on December 31, 2019.
`
`In January 2020, Pliego-Pineda began discussing another multi-kilogram shipment
`
`with the UC, as the UC was disappointed in the results of the soap conversion. After
`
`several conversations, Pliego-Pineda agreed to sell the UC three kilograms of crystal
`
`methamphetamine at $6,500 per kilogram, for a total cost of $19,500, which included
`
`delivery to North Carolina.
`
`Pliego-Pineda asked that a partial payment of $12,000 be made to his courier at
`
`delivery. But, when his courier, co-defendant Luis Alberto Garcia-Tovar (Garcia-Tovar),
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`delivered the drugs on February 6, 2020, the UC realized there were two kilograms, rather
`
`than the expected three kilograms.
`
`The UC called Pliego-Pineda to report the problem. The parties subsequently
`
`agreed to a partial payment of $9,000 to reflect the reduced quantity. Approximately one
`
`week later, the UC wired an additional $4,000 to the Wells Fargo account.
`
`On February 26, 2020, Pliego-Pineda arranged for another two-kilogram delivery
`
`to the UC. The delivery was half a kilogram short, so the UC spoke with Pliego-Pineda,
`
`inasmuch as he was the one who negotiated the deal. After the delivery, as per Pliego-
`
`Pineda’s instructions, the UC wired a partial payment of $8,000 to the Wells Fargo account.
`
`In March 2020, Pliego-Pineda, on behalf of his boss Orfael Bustos Macedo (also
`
`known as Guero), arranged a ten-kilogram delivery to the UC in North Carolina. Pliego-
`
`Pineda informed the UC only $10,000 would be needed at delivery, and the balance could
`
`be paid later.
`
`Pliego-Pineda then provided the UC with a phone number for his courier, who was
`
`later identified as co-defendant Abril Bustos-Martinez (Bustos-Martinez). Bustos-
`
`Martinez delivered nearly ten kilograms to the UC and the UC’s accomplice (UC2) in
`
`exchange for $10,000.
`
`Shortly after this delivery, law enforcement stopped Bustos-Martinez and her sister
`
`in Alabama. Officers seized $287,609 from a hidden compartment in the vehicle, which
`
`included $10,000 from the sale.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Due to the seizure, Pliego-Pineda questioned the UC about the trustworthiness of
`
`the UC2. The UC then informed Pliego-Pineda the outstanding balance of the February
`
`26, 2020, delivery had been wired to the Wells Fargo account.
`
`On June 14, 2020, Pliego-Pineda advised the UC a shipment of liquid
`
`methamphetamine from Mexico would soon be arriving in North Carolina. Pliego-Pineda
`
`sent the UC a picture of the shipping label and advised he would send someone to North
`
`Carolina to assist the UC in converting the liquid to crystal methamphetamine. The
`
`package was ultimately intercepted, and Pliego-Pineda was arrested on a federal warrant.
`
`During an interview with law enforcement, Pliego-Pineda admitted Guero was his
`
`source of supply and stated he began working for Guero several years earlier.
`
`A Middle District of North Carolina grand jury returned a two-count indictment,
`
`charging Pliego-Pineda with conspiracy to distribute 500 grams or more of a mixture and
`
`substance containing a detectable amount of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C.
`
`§§ 846 and 841(b)(1)(A), and conspiracy to commit money laundering, in violation of 18
`
`U.S.C. § 1956(a)(2)(A) and (h). Pliego-Pineda pled guilty to both counts, pursuant to a
`
`written plea agreement, after which the United States Probation Office (USPO) prepared a
`
`presentence report (PSR).
`
`The PSR calculated a base offense level of thirty-eight due to the attributable
`
`converted drug weight. Three levels were added under Guidelines § 3B1.1(b) based on the
`
`USPO’s conclusion Pliego-Pineda was a manager or supervisor of a criminal activity
`
`involving five or more participants.
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Two levels were also added under Guidelines § 2D1.1(b)(16)(C) because Pliego-
`
`Pineda was directly involved in importing a controlled substance while having an
`
`aggravating role. Additionally, two levels were added under Guidelines § 2S1.1(b)(2)(B),
`
`as the offense involved money laundering.
`
`Giving Pliego-Pineda a three-point reduction for acceptance of responsibility, the
`
`PSR calculated his total offense level as forty-two. With Pliego-Pineda’s criminal history
`
`category of I, his advisory Guidelines range was 360 months to life.
`
`Pliego-Pineda objected to the three-level managerial role enhancement under
`
`Guidelines § 3B1.1(b) and the resulting two-level specific offense enhancement under
`
`Guidelines § 2D1.1(b)(16)(C). He contended the district court lacked evidence he had
`
`given orders, set prices, or controlled or directed another member of the conspiracy.
`
`At the sentencing hearing, the district court noted Pliego-Pineda’s objection on the
`
`managerial role enhancement and heard arguments from counsel. In the district court’s
`
`finding the enhancement was appropriate, it stated as follows:
`
`Well, looking at these seven factors in the guidelines, 3D1.1, comment four,
`it is--seems to me, that he did exercise some decision making authority in the
`sense that he decided whether to go through- whether to arrange the deal.
`Now, that is the same kind of decision making authority any drug dealer has,
`you know, whether to sell to someone. So that, you know, that kind of
`decision making authority is fairly narrow, but of course here we are talking
`about repeat drug deals, very significant amounts of methamphetamine, and
`deciding whether to trust a seller--excuse me, buyer, and presumably a seller,
`but more the buyer here, is pretty significant decision making authority.
`
`The nature of the participation, he was obviously key to all of these
`transactions. He put the buyer together with those in the organization and
`the conspiracy for bringing the drugs to the deal. He certainly was involved
`in the recruitment and approval of the [UC] as an accomplice. I don’t know
`what his right to share of the proceeds were, but the money is going into his
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`bank account, where presumably he was keeping certainly some of it, but I
`don’t think I know a lot about that.
`
`But his degree of participation in planning and organizing [was] very, very
`high. He was at the center of these deals, and he had--the nature and scope
`of the illegal activity, obviously very, very significant. A wide-ranging drug
`conspiracy involving a number of players at very significant amounts, and he
`was as [the AUSA] says, the hub of this.
`
`The degree of control and authority exercised over others, that’s an
`interesting point. I’m confident that if he had told the person, you know, the
`mule, the person delivering the drugs not to take them, that that person would
`have obeyed, that person would not have done it, and that, you know, was he
`able by himself to tell the person who delivered the drugs to do it? I don’t
`know.
`
`There is clearly some other people involved in the chain of the command but,
`you know, there could be mutual control, and we’re not talking here joint
`control. We’re not talking here about being an organizer or a leader with the
`five level enhancement.
`
`We’re talking about the manager or supervisor, and it is totally clear that he
`was supervising these operations. He had a lot of oversight. He was helping
`work through delivery problems. Quality problems involving the liquid
`meth, amounts--disputes over the amounts. He was involved in all of these
`things and he was communicating the prices to the buyer, and seems to have
`had at least some authority to negotiate a price.
`
`I’m sure, you know, there may have been some constraints on that from
`others, but it seems to me, that he did have this supervisory role and this
`management role. You know, I appreciate that there is some--there is not
`direct evidence that he’s telling people, you know, specific people do this,
`do that, but he is clearly managing and supervising the operation. I have no
`doubt that if he had told these other folks, don’t do it, you know, they
`wouldn’t have done it, that he had a degree of management and supervisory
`authority and clearly somebody is telling these folks, yes, go deliver the
`drugs, and he is telling the [UC], which is an important point, take--deliver
`the money this way, put it in the bank account. He is supervising the [UC’s]
`actions, or managing them, certainly. Managing them might be a better word
`in that particular way.
`
`So when I look at all of these things together, it seems to me he falls under
`the enhancement as it is defined in the guideline, and also find by a
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`preponderance of the evidence, which means I’ll overrule [Pliego-Pineda’s]
`objection.
`
`J.A. at 69–71.
`
`After the district court adopted the PSR as-is, it determined the advisory Guidelines
`
`range was 360 months to life. Noting the downward variances given to several of Pliego-
`
`Pineda’s co-defendants and the government’s motion for a downward departure, the district
`
`court heard from the parties.
`
`Defense counsel maintained Pliego-Pineda was entitled to a downward variance,
`
`which would result in a sentence below that received by higher-level members of the
`
`conspiracy. The government agreed a downward variance was appropriate and praised
`
`Pliego-Pineda’s actions, as outlined in the government’s motion for downward departure.
`
`Additionally, Pliego-Pineda made a statement on his own behalf.
`
`Thereafter, the district court found “a very significant variance [wa]s appropriate
`
`before application of the [government’s motion].” J.A. at 89. The district court explained
`
`the sentence, prior to consideration of the government’s motion, would be 180 months.
`
`But, granting the government’s motion, the district court sentenced Pliego-Pineda to 120
`
`months of imprisonment, followed by three years of supervised release.
`
`Thereafter, Pliego-Pineda timely filed this appeal.
`
`II.
`
`
`
`“[C]ourts of appeals must review all sentences . . . under a deferential abuse-of-
`
`discretion standard.” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007). Under the Gall
`
`standard, we must first “ensure that the district court committed no significant procedural
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`error, such as failing to calculate (or improperly calculating) the Guidelines range . . . [or]
`
`selecting a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts . . . .” Id. at 51.
`
`Because the question of whether a role enhancement applies is a factual
`
`determination, it is reviewed for clear error. United States v. Kellam, 568 F.3d 125, 147–
`
`48 (4th Cir. 2009). “A finding is ‘clearly erroneous’ when although there is evidence to
`
`support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm
`
`conviction that a mistake has been committed.” United States v. U.S. Gypsum Co., 333
`
`U.S. 364, 395 (1948).
`
`Where a sentence is free from procedural error, the Court next considers whether it
`
`is substantively reasonable based on the totality of circumstances. Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.
`
`“Any sentence that is within or below a properly calculated Guidelines range is
`
`presumptively reasonable.” United States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir. 2014).
`
`A.
`
`
`
`Pliego-Pineda first argues the district court clearly erred in applying a three-level
`
`managerial role enhancement.
`
`Under the Guidelines, the district court may increase a defendant’s base offense
`
`level by three levels “[i]f the defendant was a manager or supervisor (but not an organizer
`
`or leader) and the criminal activity involved five or more participants or was otherwise
`
`extensive[.]” Guideline § 3B1.1(b). The parties agree there were five or more participants
`
`here.
`
`Although the Guidelines fail to “define ‘manager’ or ‘supervisor,’ . . . we apply
`
`their common meanings.” United States v. Burnley, 988 F.3d 184, 188 (4th Cir. 2021);
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`see, e.g., United States v. Slade, 631 F.3d 185, 190 (4th Cir. 2011) (applying the dictionary
`
`definition of “manager”).
`
`The Court has explained that a district court, in applying the common meaning of
`
`these terms, “must consider” the following seven factors set forth in the commentary:
`
`[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.
`
`Burnley, 988 F.3d at 188 (alterations in original); see Guideline § 3B1.1 cmt. 4 (setting
`
`forth the same seven factors).
`
`Neither party has disputed we are bound by this commentary. Cf. United States v.
`
`Campbell, 22 F.4th 438, 445 & n.3 (4th Cir. 2022) (explaining the Court should defer to
`
`the commentary only where the Guideline is “genuinely ambiguous . . . [after] exhaust[ing]
`
`all the ‘traditional tools’ of statutory construction” (alterations in original) (quoting Kisor
`
`v. Wilkie, 588 U.S. 558, 575 (2019))).
`
`Under Guideline § 3B1.1(b), a three-level enhancement “is appropriate where the
`
`evidence demonstrates that the defendant ‘controlled the activities of other participants’ or
`
`‘exercised management responsibility.’” Slade, 631 F.3d at 190 (quoting United States v.
`
`Bartley, 230 F.3d 667, 673–74 (4th Cir. 2000)). In Bartley, the Court held coordinating
`
`the activities of others is sufficient to warrant the enhancement. Indeed, the Guidelines
`
`make clear the management or supervision of just one participant alone renders the
`
`enhancement appropriate. Guideline § 3B1.1 cmt. 2.
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Having reviewed the record as a whole, we are unable to conclude the district court
`
`clearly erred in finding Pliego-Pineda constituted a manager or supervisor of a criminal
`
`activity involving five or more participants.
`
`As to the exercise of decision-making authority, the organization vested Pliego-
`
`Pineda with significant authority. He decided whether to trust particular buyers and
`
`whether to arrange recurring deals involving large quantities of methamphetamine in
`
`various forms.
`
`Further, as to the nature of participation in the conspiracy, Pliego-Pineda served as
`
`the organization’s primary contact in Atlanta, connecting the supplier in Mexico with
`
`buyers in North Carolina.
`
`Pliego-Pineda also had a high degree of participation in organizing the offense. As
`
`a self-proclaimed “middle man,” J.A. at 128, Pliego-Pineda negotiated the price of large-
`
`scale transactions; arranged interstate and international drug deliveries; fronted supply to,
`
`and accepted partial payments from, buyers; managed, and presumably distributed,
`
`thousands of dollars in drug proceeds; and oversaw issues regarding the quality and
`
`quantity of drugs sold.
`
`Next, as to the nature and scope of the criminal activity and the requirement it
`
`involve at least five participants, the conspiracy consisted of at least ten individuals
`
`trafficking large amounts of methamphetamine throughout Mexico, California, Georgia,
`
`and North Carolina. Although the district court lacked direct evidence of Pliego-Pineda
`
`instructing couriers to deliver drugs, this is immaterial, as an abundance of circumstantial
`
`evidence indicates Pliego-Pineda, as the Atlanta hub of the organization, controlled the
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`activities of Pineda, Mondragon-Penaloza, Garcia-Tovar, Bustos-Martinez, and unnamed
`
`individuals who shipped packages of liquid methamphetamine from Mexico in December
`
`2019 and June 2020.
`
`In explaining its decision to apply the three-level enhancement, the district court
`
`stated:
`
`[Pliego-Pineda] certainly was involved in the recruitment and approval of the
`[UC] as an accomplice. . . . He is telling the [UC], which is an important
`point, take -- deliver the money this way, put it in the bank account. He is
`supervising the [UC’s] actions, or managing them, certainly.
`
`J.A. at 69, 70. The district court erred in this regard, inasmuch as it was improper to
`
`consider Pliego-Pineda’s supervision of the UC. In doing so, the district court effectively
`
`found the UC to be a participant in the criminal activity. But, “[a] person who is not
`
`criminally responsible for the commission of the offense (e.g., an undercover law
`
`enforcement officer) is not a participant.” Guideline § 3B1.1 cmt. 1.
`
`Notwithstanding this error, as explained above, nearly all of the remaining factors
`
`support the district court’s factual findings. See Scott v. United States, 328 F.3d 132, 137
`
`(4th Cir. 2003) (explaining this Court is “entitled to affirm on any ground appearing in the
`
`record”).
`
`In sum, “[i]n a drug distribution case such as this one, the management enhancement
`
`is appropriate for a defendant who arranges drug transactions, negotiates sales with others,
`
`and hires others to work for the conspiracy.” United States v. Matthews, 168 F.3d 1234,
`
`1249 (11th Cir. 1999). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s application of the three-
`
`level enhancement.
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`B.
`
`
`
`Pliego-Pineda next argues his sentence was substantively unreasonable due to the
`
`district court’s erroneous application of the managerial role enhancement. Inasmuch as the
`
`Court holds the district court properly applied the enhancement, based on Pliego-Pineda’s
`
`argument, we also hold the sentence was substantively reasonable. See Louthian, 756 F.3d
`
`at 306 (“Any sentence that is within or below a properly calculated Guidelines range is
`
`presumptively reasonable.”).
`
`III.
`
`
`
`For the foregoing reasons, we affirm Pliego-Pineda’s sentence.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`AFFIRMED
`
`
`
`14
`
`