United States v. Ryan Jamal Washington

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
DecidedApril 16, 2021
Docket20-10872
StatusUnpublished

This text of United States v. Ryan Jamal Washington (United States v. Ryan Jamal Washington) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Ryan Jamal Washington, (11th Cir. 2021).

Opinion

USCA11 Case: 20-10872 Date Filed: 04/16/2021 Page: 1 of 7

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________

No. 20-10872 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________

D.C. Docket No. 2:19-cr-00119-MHH-GMB-3

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

RYAN JAMAL WASHINGTON, a.k.a. Ryan Washington,

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama ________________________

(April 16, 2021)

Before NEWSOM, LUCK, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: USCA11 Case: 20-10872 Date Filed: 04/16/2021 Page: 2 of 7

Ryan Washington appeals his 147-month sentence, arguing that the district

court miscalculated his advisory guideline range because it erroneously enhanced

his offense level for being a leader or organizer of a drug conspiracy. We affirm.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Washington was charged with conspiracy to distribute marijuana, conspiracy

to launder money, possession of firearm by a felon, possession of marijuana with the

intent to distribute, and use of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime.

He pleaded guilty to all counts. The presentence report calculated his advisory

guideline range using a four-level enhancement under guideline section 3B1.1(a) for

being an organizer or leader of the drug conspiracy.

Washington objected to being characterized as “an organizer or leader,” but

he did not object to the bulk of the offense conduct in the presentence report. The

district court overruled Washington’s leader-organizer objection based on the facts

he did not object to in the presentence report and the testimony of Special Agent

Gabriel Brooks.

Here are the unobjected-to facts and testimony. In January 2019, the

government began investigating Steven Gadson for marijuana trafficking. Gadson

was arrested, and while in jail, he called Washington. In that call, Washington and

Gadson “discussed continuing the operation of trafficking marijuana from California

to Alabama with Washington kind of leading it off or taking over what Gadson had

2 USCA11 Case: 20-10872 Date Filed: 04/16/2021 Page: 3 of 7

already put in place.” Washington gave Gadson the new phone number for Gadson’s

marijuana supplier, whom Gadson had introduced to Washington prior to Gadson’s

arrest. After Washington and Gadson ended their call, Gadson called the supplier

with the new number and told the supplier that Washington “would take over” in

Gadson’s place while he was incarcerated.

As part of this post-arrest reorganization, Washington sent runners to bring

the marijuana from California to be resold in Alabama. Once the marijuana was

sold, Washington would drop off money with Gadson’s girlfriend, who was in

charge of the conspiracy’s finances.

In March 2019, Washington left Birmingham, went to the area around the

Atlanta airport, and then immediately turned around and headed back to

Birmingham. When police tried to stop Washington’s car, he turned off the lights

and fled at over a hundred miles per hour. Washington was eventually taken into

custody and his car was searched. Inside Washington’s car were eighty-four one-

pound vacuum-sealed packages of marijuana, personal belongings, a computer, a

couple thousand dollars in cash, and luggage tags for the Birmingham and Atlanta

airports that did not have Washington’s name on them.

The next morning agents searched Washington’s home. They found over

$35,000, documents related to recent travel for purposes of marijuana trafficking,

marijuana packaging materials, and several firearms—some stolen. Some black and

3 USCA11 Case: 20-10872 Date Filed: 04/16/2021 Page: 4 of 7

clear vacuum sealed bags were found empty and in the trash, which the agents

believed had “at one time contained marijuana based on the impressions.”

The district court sentenced Washington to 147 months’ imprisonment.

Washington appeals the leader-organizer enhancement.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

We review for clear error the district court’s finding that the defendant played

a leadership role in the criminal offense. United States v. Dixon, 901 F.3d 1322,

1347 (11th Cir. 2018). Clear error review is deferential and “we will not disturb a

district court’s findings unless we are left with a definite and firm conviction that a

mistake has been committed.” United States v. Ghertler, 605 F.3d 1256, 1267 (11th

Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks omitted).

DISCUSSION

Washington argues that the district court clearly erred in finding that he was

a leader or organizer of the drug conspiracy because he was no more than a courier

and did not lead or supervise anyone. We disagree.

The sentencing guidelines call for a four-level increase in the defendant’s

offense level “[i]f [he] was an organizer or leader of a criminal activity that involved

five or more participants or was otherwise extensive.” U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(a). We

consider several factors when determining whether the defendant was an organizer

or leader:

4 USCA11 Case: 20-10872 Date Filed: 04/16/2021 Page: 5 of 7

(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.

United States v. Shabazz, 887 F.3d 1204, 1222 (11th Cir. 2018). But all the factors

need not be present. United States v. Caraballo, 595 F.3d 1214, 1231 (11th Cir.

2010). And the guidelines “require[] only evidence that the defendant exerted some

control, influence or decision-making authority over another participant in the

criminal activity.” Dixon, 901 F.3d at 1348. More than one person involved in the

activity can qualify as a leader. Id.

The district court did not clearly err in finding that Washington was an

organizer or leader. Washington spoke with Gadson in February 2019 about taking

over the marijuana distribution scheme and gave Gadson the supplier’s new phone

number. Gadson told the supplier that Washington would take over. Together,

Gadson and Washington developed a new plan to transport marijuana “via horse

trailers on the interstate.” And, as part of the plan, Washington directed runners to

go to California and bring back the marijuana to Birmingham so it could be resold.

See United States v. Ndiaye, 434 F.3d 1270, 1304 (11th Cir. 2006) (affirming the

district court’s leader-organizer finding because “the record reflect[ed] that [the

defendant] exercised authority over the organization by recruiting and instructing

co-conspirators”); United States v. Baggett, 954 F.2d 674

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

United States v. Luis Enrique Polar
369 F.3d 1248 (Eleventh Circuit, 2004)
United States v. Amadou Fall Ndiaye
434 F.3d 1270 (Eleventh Circuit, 2006)
United States v. Caraballo
595 F.3d 1214 (Eleventh Circuit, 2010)
United States v. Ghertler
605 F.3d 1256 (Eleventh Circuit, 2010)
United States v. Lonnie C. Baggett, Jr.
954 F.2d 674 (Eleventh Circuit, 1992)
United States v. Isabel Rodriguez De Varon
175 F.3d 930 (Eleventh Circuit, 1999)
United States v. Carlington Cruickshank
837 F.3d 1182 (Eleventh Circuit, 2016)
United States v. Qadir Shabazz
887 F.3d 1204 (Eleventh Circuit, 2018)
United States v. James Dixon
901 F.3d 1322 (Eleventh Circuit, 2018)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
United States v. Ryan Jamal Washington, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-ryan-jamal-washington-ca11-2021.