USA v. Fabian Murray

Filing

Opinion issued by court as to Appellant Fabian Terran Murray in 15-12267, 15-12268. Decision: Affirmed. Opinion type: Non-Published. Opinion method: Per Curiam. The opinion is also available through the Court's Opinions page at this link http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions. [15-12267, 15-12268]

Case: 15-12267

Date Filed: 06/28/2016

Page: 1 of 11

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
Nos. 15-12267; 15-12268
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket Nos. 1:12-cr-00285-WSD-AJB-2,
1:12-cr-00286-WSD-AJB-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
FABIAN TERRAN MURRAY,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
________________________
(June 28, 2016)

Before ROSENBAUM, ANDERSON, and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges.

Case: 15-12267

Date Filed: 06/28/2016

Page: 2 of 11

PER CURIAM:

Fabian Terran Murray appeals his total 215-month sentence, imposed below
the advisory guideline range, after pleading guilty in Case No. 1:12-cr-00285
(“Case No. 285”) to one count of knowingly causing minors to engage in
commercial sex acts, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1591(a)(1), (b)(1), and (b)(2)
(Count 3), and, in Case No. 1:12-cr-00286 (“Case No. 286”) to one count of
conspiracy to cause a minor to engage in commercial sex acts, in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 1594(c) (Count 1). The cases were consolidated on appeal. On appeal,
Murray argues that the district court improperly applied enhancements for unduly
influencing a minor to engage in prohibited sexual conduct and for playing an
aggravating role in the offenses. He further contends that the district court erred by
declining to depart downwardly from the guideline range, based on an alleged
overrepresentation of the seriousness of Murray’s criminal history. *

*

We note that the government previously filed a motion to dismiss Murray’s appeal on the
grounds that Murray’s plea agreement contained an appeal waiver, which we denied without
prejudice. The government has again argued for dismissal on appeal; however, we conclude that
Murray has a right to appeal, as an exception to the appeal waiver applies.
2

Case: 15-12267

Date Filed: 06/28/2016

Page: 3 of 11

I.

Murray first argues that the court improperly imposed an enhancement for
unduly influencing a minor under U.S.S.G. § 2G1.3(b)(2)(B). Murray asserts that
the court erred by conducting an analysis of whether he exerted undue influence by
looking at the joint acts, committed by both him and his codefendants. He
contends that, based on the plain language of the Guidelines, the acts of the other
perpetrators should be excluded.
We review the district court’s application of the Sentencing Guidelines de
novo and its findings of fact for clear error. United States v. Bane, 720 F.3d 818,
824 (11th Cir. 2013). A two-level sentencing enhancement applies if “a participant
otherwise unduly influenced a minor to engage in prohibited sexual conduct . . . .”
U.S.S.G. § 2G1.3(b)(2)(B). “Participant” has the meaning given to the term in
Application Note 1 of the Commentary to § 3B1.1. U.S.S.G. § 2G1.3, comment.
(n.1). Section 3B1.1, in turn, defines a “participant” as “a person who is criminally
responsible for the commission of the offense, but need not have been convicted.”
U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1, comment. (n.1).
“In determining whether subsection (b)(2)(B) applies, the court should
closely consider the facts of the case to determine whether a participant’s influence
over the minor compromised the voluntariness of the minor’s behavior.” U.S.S.G.
3

Case: 15-12267

Date Filed: 06/28/2016

Page: 4 of 11

§ 2G1.3, comment. (n.3(B)). The district court “may look to a variety of factors,
including whether [the defendant’s conduct] displays an abuse of superior
knowledge, influence and resources.” United States v. Root, 296 F.3d 1222, 1234
(11th Cir. 2002), superseded on other grounds by Amend. 732, U.S.S.G. App. C
(2009), as recognized in United States v. Jerchower, 631 F.3d 1181, 1186-87 (11th
Cir. 2011). Application Note 3(B) to § 2G1.3 further provides that, where a
participant is at least ten years older than the minor, a rebuttable presumption of
undue influence is triggered. § 2G1.3, comment. (n.3(B)).
The district court did not err in applying the undue influence enhancement
pursuant to § 2G1.3(b)(2)(B) in Case No. 285, involving minors O.M. and A.C.
Contrary to Murray’s argument, the enhancement applies based on the conduct of
any “participant” of the offense, not solely on the conduct of the defendant. See
U.S.S.G. § 2G1.3(b)(2)(B). Joshua Hill and Murray were both participants in the
same criminal activity. Because Hill was “criminally responsible for the
commission of the offense,” Murray may receive an enhancement if Hill unduly
influenced O.M. and A.C. to engage in prostitution. See U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1,
comment. (n.1). Thus, because Hill is a “participant,” his acts support the
enhancement to Murray.
Furthermore, even when viewing Murray’s conduct alone, he did not
overcome the rebuttable presumption based on the ten-year age gap between him
4

Case: 15-12267

Date Filed: 06/28/2016

Page: 5 of 11

and the victim, that he exerted undue influence over O.M. and A.C. See U.S.S.G.
§ 2G1.3, comment. (n.3(B)). Both girls were 14 at the time Murray -- who was
then 24 -- prostituted them. Undisputed portions of the PSI support that Murray
purchased condoms for the minors, went inside with Hill to register for the hotel
room used to prostitute the minors, had sexual intercourse with the minors, and
took a portion of the minors’ earnings. Thus, based on either the conduct of
Murray or Hill, the district court properly applied the two-level enhancement.
Although no presumption of undue influence exists in Case No. 286, the
district court did not err in finding that the undue-influence enhancement was
warranted on the evidence. Ample evidence in the record supports that Murray’s
influence over J.B. compromised the voluntariness of her behavior. See U.S.S.G.
§ 2G1.3, comment. (n.3(B)). Murray had sexual intercourse with J.B. while she
was restrained, and he told her that she could not speak unless she was spoken to
and that he would speak on her behalf. Furthermore, he abused his superior
knowledge and resources by purchasing provocative clothes for her to wear,
posting an advertisement for her sexual services online, and providing a driver to
take her to meet clients. See Root, 296 F.3d at 1234. Thus, the court properly
applied the two-level enhancement in Case No. 286.

5

Case: 15-12267

Date Filed: 06/28/2016

Page: 6 of 11

II.

Next, Murray contends that the district court’s imposition of a role
enhancement under § 3B1.1(c) was improper. First, Murray alleges that no
evidence shows that he exerted control, influence, or decision-making authority
over another participant in the criminal scheme. He argues that, in Case No. 285,
although he arranged the victim’s transportation to meet clients, that act did not
rise to the level of managing other participants in the criminal activity. He also
argues that having control over a victim is insufficient, because victims are not
“participants.” About his co-conspirators, he contends that he worked with them
but did not recruit or supervise them and did not set prices.
Murray also says that the sentencing court just relied on the government’s
conclusory statements to determine that the government satisfied its burden of
proof. He argues that the government did not offer evidence to support its
contention that he was a supervisor.
We review for clear error the district court’s determination that a defendant
is subject to an aggravating-role enhancement under § 3B1.1(c). United States v.
Jiminez, 224 F.3d 1243, 1250-51 (11th Cir. 2000). Clear error review is
deferential, and “we will not disturb a district court’s findings unless we are left
with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” United
6

Case: 15-12267

Date Filed: 06/28/2016

Page: 7 of 11

States v. Ghertler, 605 F.3d 1256, 1267 (11th Cir. 2010) (quotations omitted). If a
defendant challenges the factual basis of his sentence, then the government must
prove the disputed facts by a preponderance of the evidence with “reliable and
specific evidence.” United States v. Cataldo, 171 F.3d 1316, 1321 (11th Cir. 1999)
(quotation omitted).
Section 3B1.1(c) provides a two-level increase “[i]f the defendant was an
organizer, leader, manager, or supervisor in any criminal activity” that involved
fewer than five participants or was not “otherwise extensive” within the meaning
of § 3B1.1(a) and (b). U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(c). A defendant’s assertion of control
over only one other participant is sufficient to sustain a § 3B1.1(c) role
enhancement. U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1, comment. (n.2). A “participant” is a person who
is criminally responsible for the offense, even if not convicted. U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1,
comment. (n.1).
The commentary to § 3B1.1 sets out several factors for courts to consider in
determining if the defendant is an organizer or leader, as opposed to a mere
manager or supervisor, including the following elements: (1) the defendant’s
exercise of decision making authority; (2) the nature of defendant’s participation in
the offense; (3) whether the defendant recruited accomplices; (4) the defendant’s
claimed right to a larger share of the fruits of the crime; (5) the degree of the
defendant’s participation in planning or organizing the crime; (6) the nature and
7

Case: 15-12267

Date Filed: 06/28/2016

Page: 8 of 11

scope of the illegal activity; and (7) the degree of control and authority the
defendant exercised over others. § 3B1.1, comment. (n.4). All of these
considerations need not be present. United States v. Martinez, 584 F.3d 1022,
1026 (11th Cir. 2009). “Instead, these factors are merely considerations for the
sentencing judge.” Id. (quotations omitted). Section 3B1.1 does, however,
“require[] the exercise of some authority in the organization, the exertion of some
degree of control, influence, or leadership.” Id.
As an initial matter, contrary to what Murray’s brief implies, the court only
applied the aggravating-role enhancement in Case No. 286. Thus, Murray’s
arguments concerning Case No. 285 are immaterial. In Case No. 286, the district
court did not clearly err in applying a two-level aggravating-role adjustment
pursuant to § 3B1.1(c). The court did not base its determination upon the
conclusory statements made by the government, but rather, undisputed portions of
the PSI, which support that Murray’s behavior touched on several of the factors set
out in the commentary to § 3B1.1. According to undisputed portions of the PSI,
Murray had a greater degree of involvement in the criminal activity than the other
participants, and he also played a greater role in planning and organizing the crime.
Murray alone took J.B. to the hospital, took her back to an apartment following her
discharge, and bought her clothes that would make her more appealing as a
prostitute. In addition, it was Murray who told her that she would be working as a
8

Case: 15-12267

Date Filed: 06/28/2016

Page: 9 of 11

prostitute and that he would be speaking on her behalf, indicating that he made the
rules and decisions. Murray had sexual intercourse with J.B., while Richard King
merely restrained her: indicating that Murray was in control.
Furthermore, Murray exercised control over the other participants in the
conspiracy. J.B. and Jonathan Branch both stated that Branch acted as Murray and
King’s driver and transported J.B. to her clients. In his interview with authorities,
Branch indicated that Murray exerted authority over King as well, stating that
“King was helping Murray pimp out J.B.” and that King told him that J.B was
“Murray’s girl.” Murray claimed a larger share of the fruits of the crime than
Branch did, as King and Murray split J.B.’s earnings without giving Branch a
portion. Even if Murray was only in charge of Branch, his control over just one
person is sufficient to sustain the enhancement. See § 3B1.1, comment. (n.2).
Accordingly, the district court’s application of a two-level enhancement under
§ 3B1.1(c) was not clear error.

III.

Murray asserts that the court erroneously found that he was not entitled to a
downward departure, pursuant to § 4A1.3(b); Murray argued for an overstated
criminal history. He argues that his history was substantially overstated because
9

Case: 15-12267

Date Filed: 06/28/2016

Page: 10 of 11

his only arrests were for misdemeanors and none of his crimes were violent.
Murray also alleges that his two prior obstruction convictions resulted from taking
an unfavorable plea deal. He asserts that he should have been placed in criminal
history category III.
“If reliable information indicates that the defendant’s criminal history
category substantially over-represents the seriousness of the defendant’s criminal
history or the likelihood that the defendant will commit other crimes, a downward
departure may be warranted.” U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3(b)(1). A defendant generally may
not appeal a district court's refusal to depart downward, unless the court believed it
lacked the authority to depart. See United States v. Baker, 19 F.3d 605, 614-15
(11th Cir. 1994). We review de novo whether the district court believed it lacked
the authority to depart. United States v. Hansen, 262 F.3d 1217, 1255 (11th Cir.
2001). We do assume that the court understood it had authority to depart
downward where nothing indicated that the court misapprehended its authority. Id.
The district court was authorized to depart downwardly from the criminal
history category of IV if it found the category substantially over-represented the
seriousness of Murray’s criminal history. See U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3(b)(1). The court
here found such a departure unwarranted. In denying the request, the court gave
no indication that it misapprehended its authority to depart downward. Instead, the
court indicated that it concluded Murray’s criminal history did not merit such
10

Case: 15-12267

Date Filed: 06/28/2016

Page: 11 of 11

treatment under § 4A1.3(b)(1). The court cited the standard for downward
departure and stated that Murray fell short of this standard: demonstrating that the
sentencing court was aware that it could downwardly depart if certain conditions
were met.
AFFIRMED.

11