United States v. Collins, 877 F.3d 362

Collins pled guilty to distributing powder cocaine and at least 28 grams of crack cocaine and was sentenced to the 120‑month statutory minimum based on a prior felony drug conviction.
Law enforcement conducted four controlled buys: two simple buys from Collins, one buy where Collins asked a friend (Robert Palmer) to pick up and deliver cocaine as a one‑time favor, and one buy where Collins directed a confidential source to another dealer (T.G.) for crack; no evidence of ongoing relationships, profit-sharing, or organizational hierarchy.
The probation officer recommended a two‑level § 3B1.1 enhancement for Collins as a supervisor/manager and concluded Collins was ineligible for the statutory "safety valve," partly because agents believed his proffer contained falsehoods.
At sentencing the district court applied the § 3B1.1 two‑level enhancement, citing Bennett, and imposed the 120‑month mandatory minimum; the court said it would have imposed a lower sentence if safety‑valve relief applied.
On appeal the Seventh Circuit reviewed whether the district court legally erred in applying § 3B1.1 based on Collins’s isolated acts and whether that error was harmless given the statutory consequences (loss of safety‑valve eligibility).

Issue	Collins' Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Whether § 3B1.1 two‑level supervisory/manager enhancement applies to Collins’s one‑time request to Palmer to cover a sale	The single, isolated favor did not create supervision, control, or an ongoing hierarchy; Collins was a one‑man operation	Telling Palmer where to get drugs, deliver them, and return payment shows direction equivalent to courier supervision (citing Bennett)	Enhancement improperly applied — legal error; one‑time favor without control/ongoing relationship does not satisfy § 3B1.1
Whether directing the confidential source to T.G. for crack supports § 3B1.1	A mere referral on one occasion, without control, pricing, or profit, is insufficient	Collins’s guilty plea for the crack distribution through T.G. supports the finding of supervisory role	Enhancement not supported by T.G. transaction; referral alone does not establish supervisory role under § 3B1.1
Whether the erroneous enhancement was harmless given the sentence imposed	The enhancement barred safety‑valve relief and affected sentencing; not harmless	(Argued that facts/plea justified enhancement)	Error was not harmless because it disqualified Collins from the statutory safety valve; remand for resentencing to reassess safety‑valve eligibility and any guideline issues

United States v. Figueroa, 682 F.3d 694 (7th Cir. 2012) (distinguishes ongoing supervision from one‑time requests; applied § 3B1.1 to a middle manager)
United States v. Bennett, 708 F.3d 879 (7th Cir. 2013) (applied § 3B1.1 where defendant repeatedly directed a courier where to obtain and deliver drugs)
United States v. Weaver, 716 F.3d 439 (7th Cir. 2013) (§ 3B1.1 requires some degree of control and a hierarchy among participants)
United States v. McGregor, 11 F.3d 1133 (2d Cir. 1993) (one isolated instance of asking a spouse to assist does not warrant § 3B1.1)
United States v. Mankiewicz, 122 F.3d 399 (7th Cir. 1997) (reversed enhancement where a single instance of directing a parent did not show real, direct influence)
United States v. Brown, 944 F.2d 1377 (7th Cir. 1991) (isolated incident of giving direction does not warrant § 3B1.1)
United States v. Schuh, 289 F.3d 968 (7th Cir. 2002) (referring customers to dealers did not justify § 3B1.1)