United States v. McKinney, 5 F.4th 104

McKinney was part of a drug trafficking organization that transported heroin and cocaine from Rochester, NY to central Maine; leaders Spinks and Warren supplied drugs on consignment.
McKinney recruited and paid local associates (often drug users) to drive him, sell drugs, and obtain firearms via straw purchasers; he compensated them with cash or drugs.
He directed drivers to specific locations for multiple daily transactions, instructed straw purchasers which guns to buy and what to put on forms, and sent some acquired firearms back to Rochester.
Indicted in 2018, McKinney pleaded guilty to a drug conspiracy count and a firearms-conspiracy count.
At sentencing the district court applied a three-level U.S.S.G. §3B1.1(b) manager/supervisor enhancement based on grand-jury witness testimony and other record evidence, producing a guidelines range of 110–137 months; the court imposed a downward-variant 77-month concurrent sentence.
On appeal McKinney argued the enhancement was improper because paying or requesting discrete services is not the same as exercising supervisory authority or coercive control; the First Circuit affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Applicability of U.S.S.G. §3B1.1(b) manager/supervisor enhancement	Gov: record shows McKinney recruited, directed, and paid multiple associates, instructed straw purchasers, and coordinated shipments—thus he exercised control over other participants	McKinney: merely hiring or paying others to perform tasks is not managerial authority; there must be a relationship of coercion or an established chain-of-command allowing him to demand compliance	Affirmed. §3B1.1(b) applies: scope requirement met; minimal or one-time exercise of control over other criminal actors suffices and the record shows such control

United States v. Flores-Machicote, 706 F.3d 16 (1st Cir. 2013) (describes two-step appellate review of sentencing challenges)
United States v. Ilarraza, 963 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2020) (explains enhancement requires exercise of control over another participant)
United States v. Tejada–Beltrán, 50 F.3d 105 (1st Cir. 1995) (government bears burden to prove role enhancement)
United States v. McCormick, 773 F.3d 357 (1st Cir. 2014) (government must prove enhancement by a preponderance of the evidence)
United States v. Voccola, 99 F.3d 37 (1st Cir. 1996) (describes scope/status two-step for §3B1.1)
United States v. Cortés-Cabán, 691 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2012) (role evidence may be circumstantial; single instance of managing others can suffice)
United States v. Flores–de–Jesús, 569 F.3d 8 (1st Cir. 2009) (enhancement requires control of criminal actors, not merely activities)
United States v. García-Sierra, 994 F.3d 17 (1st Cir. 2021) (minimal authority or one occasion of control can support enhancement)