[D O NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FILED

F O R THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

JANUARY 22, 2007

THOMAS K. KAHN

N o . 06-12225

CLERK

N o n - A r g u m e n t Calendar

D . C. Docket No. 05-00343-CR-T-26-TBM

U N IT E D STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JOSEPH WILLIAMS,

Defendant-Appellant.

A p p e al from the United States District Court

fo r the Middle District of Florida

(J a n u a ry 22, 2007)

B efo re BIRCH, CARNES and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.

P E R CURIAM:

Jo sep h Williams appeals his 72-month sentence for conspiracy to commit

w ir e fraud, arguing that the court improperly determined that he played an o rg an izatio n al/lead ersh ip role in the offense. After a thorough review of the reco rd , we affirm.

Williams pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit wire fraud, in violation of 1 8U.S.C. §§ 1343, 1349. In his plea colloquy, Williams admitted that he and two co -co n sp irato rs, Paul Rennie and Charles Bartolomeo, prepared a fraudulent b u s in e s s plan for a fictitious company called Horizon Group International ("HGI"), w h ich they falsely portrayed as a large, successful construction and development co m p an y. The purpose of the scheme was to entice investors to loan the company m o n e y, which the conspirators would keep for themselves by offering as collateral o v er $15,000,000 in heavy construction equipment that the company did not a ctu a lly own. The business plan named Williams as president of HGI, Rennie as v ice president, and Bartolomeo as a certified public accountant ("CPA"), which he w as not.

All three co-conspirators traveled throughout the United States making false r ep r e se n ta tio n s about the fraudulent business plan. Bartolomeo misrepresented h im self as a CPA to potential investors in Arizona, vouching for the assets and fin an cial health of HGI. Williams met an employee of a victim investor at a co n stru ctio n yard in Florida, where he falsely represented the equipment in the yard as belonging to HGI. In total, the co-conspirators obtained $2,450,000 from th ree investors, with Bartolomeo receiving $35,000, and Williams and Rennie sp littin g the rest.

The probation officer prepared a presentence investigation report ("PSI"), assigning a base offense level of 6, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(a), with a 16le v e l increase under § 2B1.1(b)(1)(I) because the amount of loss was between $ 1 ,0 0 0 ,0 0 0 and $2,500,000. The PSI then applied a two-level role increase, p u r su a n t to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(c), finding that Williams was a manager, organizer, an d leader in the criminal conduct. According to the probation officer, Williams p a id an employee's wife, who was a bank teller, to represent falsely to investors th at she was HGI's banker and that its business plan accurately represented HGI's f in a n c ia l state. Williams's total offense level of 21 and criminal history category o f III yielded an advisory guideline sentencing range of 46 to 57 months im p riso n m en t. Williams objected to the role enhancement.

At the sentencing hearing, Williams argued that HGI was a small o rg an izatio n , the members of which shared equal culpability and leadership, and h is title of president of HGI did not actually mean that he had decision-making au th o rity. The district court overruled Williams's objection, noting that Williams receiv ed a large portion of the money and recruited the bank teller to assist in the f ra u d . After considering the sentencing factors set forth in 18U.S.C. § 3553(a), th e court sentenced Williams to 72 months imprisonment. Williams now appeals, ch allen g in g the application of the enhancement for his role in the offense and arg u in g that his sentence is unreasonable.

We review a district court's application of an enhancement for a defendant's r o le as a leader or organizer under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1 for clear error. United States v . Phillips, 287 F.3d 1053, 1055 (11th Cir. 2002). After Booker,1 the district court is still required to correctly calculate the guidelines range and this court reviews a d efen d an t's ultimate sentence for reasonableness. United States v. Lee, 427 F.3d 8 8 1 , 892 (11th Cir. 2005), cert. denied, 126 S.Ct. 1447 (2006); United States v. W in in g ear, 422 F.3d 1241, 1244 (11th Cir. 2005); United States v. Crawford, 4 0 7 F .3 d 1174, 1179 (11th Cir. 2005).

The Sentencing Guidelines provide for a two-level increase in the offense le v e l if the defendant "was an organizer, leader, manager, or supervisor" in an o ffen se with more than one participant. U.S.S.G. §3B1.1(c). In determining the d efen d an t's role in the offense, the district court should consider: the exercise of decision making authority, the nature of participation in the commission of the offense, the recruitment of accomplices, the claim ed right to a larger share of the fruits of the crime, the degree of p articip atio n in planning or organizing the offense, the nature and 1 United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 , 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). sco p e of the illegal activity, and the degree of control and authority ex ercised over others.

U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1 comment. (n.4). This court has held that "the assertion of control o r influence over only one individual is enough to support a § 3B1.1(c) e n h a n c e m e n t." United States v. Jiminez, 224 F.3d 1243, 1251 (11th Cir. 2000); see also United States v. Mandhai, 375 F.3d 1243, 1248 (11th Cir. 2004) (applying e n h a n c e m e n t to defendant who recruited a single person).

In this case, we conclude that Williams's argument is without merit because th e evidence was sufficient to support a finding that he served as an organizer and lead er. Williams and one co-conspirator received the bulk of the fraudulently attain ed money, leaving a small fraction for the other co-conspirator. U.S.S.G.

§ 3B1.1 comment. (n.4). Moreover, Williams admitted recruiting the bank teller in fu rth eran ce of the fraud, supporting a finding that he acted in a leadership role. Id.

Williams argues that the scope of his illegal activity was equaled or su rp assed by the illegal activity of co-conspirator Bartolomeo, and therefore, he c o u ld not have been found to be a leader or organizer. As the commentary makes clear, however, there can be more than one person in a offense occupying o rg an izatio n al and leadership roles. See U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1 comment. (n.4).

Regardless of his co-conspirators' conduct, Williams's recruitment of the bank te lle r into the offense and his directing her to make fraudulent representations was su fficien t to support the enhancement. See Jiminez, 224 F.3d at 1251.

Therefore, we conclude that the district court properly applied the en h an cem en t and that the sentence imposed was reasonable. Accordingly, we A F F IR M .