United States v. Parrilla Román
485 F.3d 185, 2007 WL 1345977 (2007)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines, a position of trust is characterized by professional or managerial discretion and significantly less supervision. Mere access to restricted areas or the opportunity to commit an offense, without such discretion, does not elevate a non-discretionary job into a position of trust for sentencing enhancement purposes.
Facts:
- Carlos Javier Ortiz Santiago (Ortiz) and Omar Parrilla Román (Parrilla) were employed by American Airlines as fleet service clerks at an international airport.
- Their job duties included loading and unloading cargo, handling mail, and cleaning aircraft.
- The defendants were paid approximately $10.00-$12.50 per hour.
- In 2003, Ortiz and Parrilla joined a conspiracy to transport cocaine from Puerto Rico to the U.S. mainland.
- Ortiz would receive suitcases containing cocaine and use his employee status to bypass security checkpoints without inspection.
- Ortiz would then ensure the cocaine-laden suitcases were stowed aboard designated airplanes.
- Parrilla would confirm to co-conspirators that the suitcase was successfully placed on the flight and sometimes provided baggage claim tickets and flight information.
Procedural Posture:
- Carlos Ortiz and Omar Parrilla were charged in a federal indictment for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine.
- Both defendants pleaded guilty in the U.S. District Court.
- During their respective sentencing hearings, the government sought a two-level sentencing enhancement for abuse of a position of trust, which the defendants opposed.
- The district court applied the enhancement to both defendants, calculating a guideline sentencing range of 87-108 months.
- The court sentenced both Ortiz and Parrilla to 87 months in prison.
- Ortiz and Parrilla, as appellants, appealed their sentences to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, challenging the application of the position-of-trust enhancement.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a non-supervisory, low-level position as an airline fleet service clerk constitute a 'position of public or private trust' under USSG § 3B1.3 merely because the job provides security clearance and access to restricted airport areas, thereby facilitating a crime?
Opinions:
Majority - Selya, Senior Circuit Judge.
No. A non-supervisory position does not constitute a position of trust under USSG § 3B1.3 simply because it provides access that facilitates a crime; the position itself must be characterized by professional or managerial discretion. The court applied a two-step process, first asking if the defendant occupied a position of trust (the status question), and only then asking if the defendant used that position to facilitate the crime (the conduct question). The district court erred by conflating these two steps, incorrectly reasoning that because the defendants' access facilitated the crime, their position must have been one of trust. The court clarified that the guideline's definition of a 'position of trust' focuses on the nature of the job's duties—specifically, professional or managerial discretion and minimal supervision—not the opportunity or access it affords. The defendants' fleet service clerk jobs, being menial and non-discretionary, are analogous to the bank teller or hotel clerk positions explicitly excluded from the enhancement by the guidelines.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces and clarifies the two-step analytical framework for applying the abuse of trust sentencing enhancement under USSG § 3B1.3. It establishes a firm precedent that the 'status' inquiry is paramount and must be independent of the 'conduct' inquiry. The ruling prevents the enhancement from being broadly applied to any employee whose job merely provides the physical access or opportunity to commit a crime, thereby preserving the enhancement for defendants who truly betray a position involving substantial discretionary authority. This clarification is significant for future cases involving employees in secure environments, ensuring that sentencing courts focus on the substantive duties of the job rather than the circumstantial opportunities it presents.
