United States v. Kurt Steffen
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 25363
4th Cir.2013Background
- In Nov. 2009 police searched property owned by South Carolina trooper Kurt Steffen and seized 315 marijuana plants and grow equipment; the property was one of at least five sites in a large-scale cultivation conspiracy.
- Steffen pleaded guilty to manufacturing and possessing with intent to distribute 100+ marijuana plants (5-year mandatory minimum).
- The PSR labeled Steffen a “mid-level operator” but recommended a 3-level role enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(b) (manager/supervisor), a 2-level abuse-of-trust increase, and a 2-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility, yielding a guidelines range elevated to 60–71 months because of the mandatory minimum.
- Facts supporting the enhancement included: Steffen purchased the land, paid for grow equipment and electricity, transferred the utility bill into co-defendant Armando Verdugo’s name to avoid detection, used his patrol vehicle (in uniform) to transport marijuana, and twice followed Verdugo in his patrol car to shield him from other law enforcement.
- The district court found Steffen was a manager/supervisor (relying on his ability to “pull the plug” by virtue of land ownership and his conduct shielding and concealing Verdugo) and imposed the 60-month mandatory minimum. Steffen appealed, arguing the enhancement was erroneous because he only managed property, not people.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Gov't) | Defendant's Argument (Steffen) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 3B1.1(b) role enhancement was supported by a preponderance of the evidence | The court may infer manager/supervisor status from conduct showing control over another participant (shielding Verdugo, transferring utility bill, directing how others avoid detection). | Steffen contended he only exercised control over property and never managed or supervised other participants. | The Fourth Circuit affirmed: evidence showed Steffen directed/coordinated at least one participant (Verdugo), so the § 3B1.1(b) enhancement was not clearly erroneous. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Cameron, 573 F.3d 179 (4th Cir. 2009) (§ 3B1.1 enhancement requires proof the defendant organized, led, managed, or supervised people)
- United States v. Slade, 631 F.3d 185 (4th Cir. 2011) (reversed enhancement where record lacked evidence defendant managed or supervised other participants)
- United States v. Bartley, 230 F.3d 667 (4th Cir. 2000) (affirmed enhancement where defendant directed dealers, set prices, arranged logistics)
- United States v. Llamas, 599 F.3d 381 (4th Cir. 2010) (upheld enhancement for supervisory control of fraud operation)
- United States v. Mejia-Orosco, 867 F.2d 216 (5th Cir. 1989) (leadership-role determinations are factual and reviewed for clear error)
- United States v. Sayles, 296 F.3d 219 (4th Cir. 2002) (§ 3B1.1 requires demonstration defendant was an organizer, leader, manager, or supervisor)