United States v. Rivera, 51 F.4th 47

In May 2019 Rivera and co-conspirators planned and executed a home invasion of R.S. to steal cash/drugs and later the victim's truck.
Rivera recruited and coordinated participants, relayed the target address, helped plan the party at the house, unlocked the front door to allow entry, and postponed the robbery date when he chose.
During the invasion Mercado and Hardy brandished firearms, fired shots, and the victim was injured; Rivera directed accomplices during the escape (instructing them to take his car and grab his bag).
Rivera pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery; the PSI recommended a 4-level organizer/leader enhancement under USSG §3B1.1(a); Rivera objected to the enhancement in the PSI process but did not object at sentencing to the guideline calculation.
The district court applied the §3B1.1(a) enhancement, varied downward for mitigating factors and overstated criminal history, and sentenced Rivera to 97 months (bottom of the revised range), stating it would impose the same sentence "untethered from the guidelines."
Rivera appealed solely the §3B1.1(a) enhancement under plain-error review.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court plainly erred in applying a 4-level organizer/leader enhancement under USSG §3B1.1(a)	Government: Preponderance of evidence shows Rivera was the instigator/organizer — recruited participants, coordinated planning, controlled timing and entry, and exercised authority over co-conspirators in a 5+ person enterprise; enhancement applies.	Rivera: At most a manager/supervisor; Mercado was the primary mover; the enhancement was clear or obvious error (but review is plain error because he failed to object at sentencing).	Affirmed. The record supports an organizer finding under the guideline factors; even if error, it was harmless because the court said it would impose the same sentence irrespective of the Guidelines.

United States v. Bermúdez–Meléndez, 827 F.3d 160 (1st Cir. 2016) (supports drawing facts from plea materials and PSI where plea governs factual record)
United States v. Duarte, 246 F.3d 56 (1st Cir. 2001) (plain-error review framework)
United States v. Tejada-Beltran, 50 F.3d 105 (1st Cir. 1995) (definition of organizer and illustrative §3B1.1 factors)
United States v. Ilarraza, 963 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2020) (a defendant need not have complete hegemony to qualify as organizer)
United States v. Ventura, 353 F.3d 84 (1st Cir. 2003) (role-in-offense inquiries are factbound)
United States v. McCormick, 773 F.3d 357 (1st Cir. 2014) (government bears preponderance burden to prove role enhancement)
United States v. Ouellette, 985 F.3d 107 (1st Cir. 2021) (if court would impose same sentence regardless of Guidelines, any Guidelines error is harmless)
United States v. Talladino, 38 F.3d 1255 (1st Cir. 1994) (unilateral decisions about timing/location support organizer characteristics)
United States v. Rodríguez-Lozada, 558 F.3d 29 (1st Cir. 2009) (subordinate status does not negate leadership role)
United States v. Garcia-Sierra, 994 F.3d 17 (1st Cir. 2021) (evidence of control over other actors supports role enhancement)