United States v. Kenneth Dodd, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 20723

Kenneth Dodd, an inmate at Rivers Correctional Institution (a private facility housing federal inmates under contract with the BOP), paid two correctional officers to smuggle contraband (cell phones, tobacco) into the institution and resold items to other inmates.
A DOJ Inspector General investigation led to a federal indictment charging Dodd with bribery (18 U.S.C. § 201(b)(1)(C)) and conspiracy (18 U.S.C. § 371); Dodd pleaded guilty to both counts.
The presentence report applied a 4-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2C1.1(b)(3) on the ground the bribed officers were "public officials in a high-level decision-making or sensitive position," raising the Guidelines range from 24–30 months to 37–46 months.
Dodd objected that private correctional officers are not in a "high-level decision-making or sensitive position;" the district court overruled the objection and sentenced Dodd to 37 months.
On appeal, the Fourth Circuit reviewed de novo whether private correctional officers acting under BOP authority qualify as occupying a "sensitive position" for § 2C1.1(b)(3).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Dodd)	Defendant's Argument (Gov't)	Held
Whether private correctional officers acting under BOP authority occupy a "high-level decision-making or sensitive position" under U.S.S.G. § 2C1.1(b)(3)	Officers did not make governmental decisions or exert substantial influence over government decision-making; bribes did not target official acts	Officers act on behalf of the BOP under contract, exercise authority over inmates and facility safety, and are analogous to law enforcement officers listed in the guideline commentary	Held: Yes; private correctional officers under BOP authority occupy a "sensitive position" and the 4-level enhancement was properly applied

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (standards for review of district-court sentencing)
United States v. McManus, 734 F.3d 315 (4th Cir. 2013) (procedural reasonableness and Guidelines calculation error)
United States v. Hargrove, 701 F.3d 156 (4th Cir. 2012) (sentencing review principles)
United States v. Bartko, 728 F.3d 327 (4th Cir. 2013) (standard of review for factual findings and legal conclusions at sentencing)
United States v. Allen, 446 F.3d 522 (4th Cir. 2006) (standards for appellate review of sentencing factual findings)
United States v. Adepoju, 756 F.3d 250 (4th Cir. 2014) (mixed questions of law and fact in Guidelines applications)
United States v. Steffen, 741 F.3d 411 (4th Cir. 2013) (distinguishing legal vs. factual review for guideline application)
United States v. Snell, 152 F.3d 345 (5th Cir. 1998) (interpreting whether an official holds a high-level or sensitive position is a question of law)
United States v. Thomas, 240 F.3d 445 (5th Cir. 2001) (private detention-center guard treated as a public official under § 201(a)(1))
Peterson v. 629 F.3d 432 (4th Cir. 2011) (discussing authoritative force of Guidelines commentary)
United States v. Matzkin, 14 F.3d 1014 (4th Cir. 1994) (official with procurement discretion held to occupy a sensitive position)
United States v. ReBrook, 58 F.3d 961 (4th Cir. 1995) (consideration of sensitivity where application rests on factual evaluation)
Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343 (1996) (describing prisons as inherently dangerous)