Introduction

This appeal arises from the sentencing of Antoine D. Wilson, who was convicted by a jury of conspiracy to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A)(ii), and 846. At the time of the conspiracy, Wilson was already serving a 15-year federal sentence for an earlier cocaine offense. The district court imposed a 300-month sentence for the conspiracy (plus a concurrent 96 months for using a telephone in furtherance of a drug felony), and—crucially—ran the 300 months consecutive to his undischarged term.

On appeal, Wilson challenged two sentencing decisions: (1) the four-level leadership enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(a), and (2) the court’s choice to run his 300-month sentence consecutive to the undischarged federal term. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed in full.

Although unpublished and therefore not precedential in the Eleventh Circuit, the opinion offers a clear reaffirmation of two important points: (a) a defendant’s incarceration does not immunize him from a leadership enhancement where the record shows recruitment, coordination, and direction of co-conspirators; and (b) when an offense is committed during an existing term of imprisonment, the Sentencing Guidelines advise consecutive sentences, and district courts may give significant weight to deterrence and the seriousness of an in‑custody offense when deciding concurrency.

Summary of the Opinion

• Leadership Enhancement (U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(a)): The district court did not clearly err in finding that Wilson acted as an organizer or leader. Evidence showed he recruited a co‑conspirator, connected conspirators to a supplier, coordinated multi‑kilogram deliveries, and directed key logistics and payment flows from prison using a contraband cellphone. The enhancement applied even though Wilson was incarcerated and his leadership was exercised “commensurate with [his] location.”
• Harmlessness Given Mandatory Minimum: Because Wilson’s statutory minimum was 300 months (due to two prior serious drug felonies), any Guidelines calculation error would have been harmless—the mandatory minimum displaced the guideline range under U.S.S.G. § 5G1.1(b). The court nonetheless addressed the enhancement because Wilson argued the range influenced the concurrency decision.
• Consecutive Sentencing: The district court did not abuse its discretion in making the 300‑month sentence run consecutive. It considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, emphasizing that Wilson committed the offense while incarcerated and the need for specific and general deterrence. The court also noted the Guidelines’ advisory direction (U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3(a)) that offenses committed during imprisonment should run consecutive. The resulting total sentence was substantively reasonable.

Factual and Procedural Background

While serving a 180‑month federal sentence imposed in 2019 for cocaine offenses (with approximately 6.5 years left at the time of sentencing in this case), Wilson became involved in a new conspiracy transporting roughly 50 kilograms of cocaine from Texas to Florida over 4 shipments in 6–7 months, using semi‑trucks.

Law enforcement wiretaps on co‑conspirators Marcus Spears and Ramon Singleton captured Wilson’s role connecting them to a Texas supplier (“Migo”) and coordinating transactions via a contraband cellphone from prison. Co‑conspirators testified that Wilson:

• Recruited Singleton to serve as the “face and voice” for the supplier;
• Placed Spears and Migo together and acted as the necessary intermediary;
• Set or negotiated prices and resolved discrepancies between money and product;
• Directed logistics to ensure safe delivery and payment flows.

Text messages and intercepted calls corroborated that Wilson issued instructions (e.g., directing who should pick up, who to contact, and how to communicate) and arranged for his share to be delivered to his sister or placed in his commissary account. Although witnesses disputed the exact amount Wilson received, the district court found the record showed he secured a meaningful benefit relative to his incarcerated status.

The Presentence Investigation Report set a base offense level of 32 and added four levels under § 3B1.1(a) (organizer/leader with 5+ participants), for a total offense level of 36. With a criminal history category of III, the advisory range was 235–293 months. Because Wilson had two prior serious felony drug convictions (2005 and 2019), a 300‑month statutory minimum applied, making the effective guideline sentence 300 months under § 5G1.1(b). The district court imposed the 300 months and, after weighing the § 3553(a) factors and U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3(a), ran the sentence consecutive to the undischarged term.

Detailed Analysis

Precedents and Authorities Cited

• Standards of Review:
  • United States v. Rothenberg, 610 F.3d 621 (11th Cir. 2010): Legal questions de novo; factual findings for clear error; guideline applications to facts with due deference.
  • United States v. Rodriguez De Varon, 175 F.3d 930 (11th Cir. 1999) (en banc); United States v. Grushko, 50 F.4th 1 (11th Cir. 2022): Role-in-the-offense is a factual determination reviewed for clear error.
  • United States v. Covington, 565 F.3d 1336 (11th Cir. 2009); United States v. King, 57 F.4th 1334 (11th Cir. 2023); United States v. Goldman, 953 F.3d 1213 (11th Cir. 2020): Consecutive vs. concurrent decisions reviewed for abuse of discretion; substantive reasonableness assessed under deferential standards.
• Leadership Enhancement Framework:
  • United States v. Dixon, 901 F.3d 1322 (11th Cir. 2018): Enumerates § 3B1.1(a) leadership/organization factors (decision-making authority, recruitment, planning, control, share of profits, and scope).
  • United States v. Martinez, 584 F.3d 1022 (11th Cir. 2009): Enhancement requires “some degree of control, influence, or leadership”; no single factor is dispositive, and money is not a prerequisite.
• Mandatory Minimums and Harmless Error:
  • Williams v. United States, 503 U.S. 193 (1992): Sentencing error may be harmless if it did not affect the sentence selected.
  • U.S.S.G. § 5G1.1(b): If a statutory minimum exceeds the guideline range’s maximum, the statutory minimum becomes the guideline sentence.
  • United States v. Chirino‑Alvarez, 615 F.3d 1344 (11th Cir. 2010): In such circumstances, guideline calculation errors are harmless.
• Consecutive Sentencing Authority:
  • 18 U.S.C. § 3584; Setser v. United States, 566 U.S. 231 (2012): District courts possess discretion to run sentences concurrent or consecutive, guided by § 3553(a).
  • U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3(a): Advises that when the instant offense is committed during a term of imprisonment, the sentence “shall” run consecutive to the undischarged term; advisory in nature but must be considered (United States v. Henry, 1 F.4th 1315 (11th Cir. 2021)).
  • United States v. Dougherty, 754 F.3d 1353 (11th Cir. 2014); United States v. Hunt, 526 F.3d 739 (11th Cir. 2008): A total sentence below the statutory maximum and within the advisory range are indicators of reasonableness, but neither is dispositive.

Legal Reasoning Applied

1) § 3B1.1(a) Leadership Enhancement Despite Incarceration

The appellate court upheld the district court’s finding that Wilson functioned as an organizer or leader of a conspiracy involving five or more participants. The record showed:

• Recruitment: Wilson recruited Singleton to act as the local “face and voice” for the supplier to facilitate deliveries in Pensacola.
• Coordination/Middleman Role: Wilson connected Spears and Singleton with supplier “Migo,” arranged shipment schedules, transmitted payment and delivery details, and addressed discrepancies. Co‑conspirators testified that nothing moved with Migo without Wilson’s involvement.
• Direction/Control: Intercepted communications reflected Wilson issuing instructions—who should pick up, who to call, and how to communicate—demonstrating decision‑making authority and operational control, even if exercised remotely from prison.
• Scope: The conspiracy moved approximately 50 kg of cocaine over four shipments, underscoring breadth and structure.
• Profit Share Not Dispositive: Even if Wilson’s monetary gain was modest, money is only one factor; recruitment, coordination, and directing others embody “control, influence, or leadership” under Martinez.

The court rejected Wilson’s argument that incarceration necessarily negates leadership. While imprisonment “necessarily limited” how Wilson participated, the question is functional: did he recruit, organize, coordinate, and direct others? The answer was yes. The district court’s references to leadership “commensurate with [his] location” did not lower the legal bar; they recognized how leadership manifested in fact. On this record, the finding was not clearly erroneous.

2) Harmlessness in Light of the Statutory Minimum

Because Wilson’s statutory minimum was 300 months, § 5G1.1(b) dictated that the guideline sentence was 300 months. Consistent with Williams and Chirino‑Alvarez, any putative error in calculating the advisory range (including the leadership enhancement) was harmless as to the length of the sentence for the instant offense. The panel nonetheless addressed the enhancement because Wilson argued the calculated range influenced the district court’s concurrency decision—a point the court ultimately rejected both on the merits (the enhancement was proper) and because reasonableness does not turn solely on guideline ranges.

3) Consecutive Sentencing Was Within the District Court’s Discretion

The district court carefully exercised its discretion under § 3584 and Setser, explicitly considering the § 3553(a) factors. Two features drove its choice to run the 300‑month sentence consecutive to the undischarged term:

• Seriousness and Location of the Offense: The court emphasized that Wilson committed a multi‑shipment, high‑volume cocaine conspiracy while incarcerated—an aggravating circumstance not captured in the advisory range. The court concluded that running the sentence concurrent would not adequately “capture the fact” of in‑custody criminal conduct.
• Deterrence: The court gave “big concern” to deterring both Wilson and others from engaging in criminal conduct while imprisoned. It found that adding only the concurrent portion (about 18.5 years of additional time, given the remaining 6.5 years on the undischarged term) would not sufficiently deter similar in‑prison offenses.

The court also noted the Guidelines’ direction in § 5G1.3(a) that offenses committed while serving a term of imprisonment “shall” run consecutive. Although advisory, this policy statement “puts [a] thumb on the scale” in favor of consecutivity. The Eleventh Circuit agreed the district court weighed the relevant considerations and did not commit a clear error of judgment. Under Rosales‑Bruno, the weight assigned to specific factors lies within the district court’s sound discretion.

Impact and Implications

• Leadership Enhancements for Prison‑Based Conduct: Defendants who recruit, coordinate, and direct activity—even indirectly via contraband phones—remain eligible for § 3B1.1(a) leadership enhancements. Physical absence or incarceration does not bar the enhancement when the functional hallmarks of leadership are present. Counsel should not assume that a “middleman” label defeats leadership; the inquiry focuses on actual control, influence, and organization.
• Monetary Gain Is Not Required: Minimal personal profit will not shield a defendant from a leadership finding where other factors (recruitment, direction, organizing scope) demonstrate leadership.
• Mandatory Minimums and Appellate Strategy: Where a statutory minimum exceeds the advisory range, challenges to guideline calculations typically cannot reduce the sentence because § 5G1.1(b) makes the minimum the operative guideline sentence. Defense arguments may, however, seek to influence concurrency or variance decisions; this opinion signals that even then, district courts retain broad discretion rooted in § 3553(a).
• Consecutive Sentences for In‑Prison Crimes: The Guidelines’ policy in § 5G1.3(a) provides strong support for running sentences consecutive when offenses are committed during incarceration. Judges may give substantial weight to deterrence and the special seriousness of in‑custody criminal conduct, making consecutive sentences likely in similar cases.
• Sentencing Rationale Beyond the Range: The opinion underscores that reasonableness does not hinge on guideline arithmetic alone. Courts can identify aggravating facts not captured by the range—such as the in‑custody nature of the offense—and adjust concurrency decisions accordingly.
• Evidentiary Takeaway: Wiretap intercepts and even short directive messages can be powerful evidence of leadership and control. Co‑conspirator testimony, corroborated by communications, can sustain role enhancements under the clear‑error standard of review.
• Non‑precedential but Persuasive: Although unpublished, the decision aligns with existing Eleventh Circuit authority and will be persuasive to district courts confronting similar fact patterns.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Leadership Enhancement (U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(a)): Adds offense levels when a defendant organizes or leads a crime involving 5+ people or otherwise extensive activity. Courts look for signs like recruiting others, giving directions, making decisions, organizing logistics, or handling money and disputes. Not every factor must be present; “some degree of control or influence” suffices.
• Mandatory Minimum vs. Guidelines: The Sentencing Guidelines produce an advisory range based on offense and criminal history. But if a statute requires a minimum sentence that’s higher than the range, the court must impose at least that minimum. In such cases, guideline errors often won’t change the sentence (harmless error).
• Concurrent vs. Consecutive Sentences: When a defendant is already serving time, the court must decide whether the new sentence runs at the same time (concurrent) or starts after the current one ends (consecutive). Courts weigh the § 3553(a) factors—like seriousness, deterrence, and the defendant’s history. If the new offense happened while already in prison, the Guidelines advise a consecutive sentence.
• Standards of Appellate Review:
  • Clear error (for factual findings like leadership): The appellate court will not disturb the finding unless left with a firm conviction a mistake was made.
  • Abuse of discretion (for concurrency decisions and overall reasonableness): Highly deferential; the appellate court asks whether the sentencing court made a clear error in judgment after considering the proper factors.
  • Harmless error: Even if the district court made a mistake, the appellate court will affirm if the mistake didn’t affect the sentence chosen (e.g., a statutory minimum dictated the outcome).

Conclusion

The Eleventh Circuit’s decision in United States v. Wilson reaffirms two core sentencing principles. First, incarceration does not shield a defendant from a § 3B1.1(a) leadership enhancement where the record demonstrates recruiting, organizing, and directing co‑conspirators—even if that leadership is exercised remotely. Second, when crimes are committed during an existing term of imprisonment, district courts act well within their discretion by imposing consecutive sentences, particularly where deterrence and the seriousness of in‑custody criminal conduct are paramount and where U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3(a) advises consecutivity.

Practically, the opinion underscores that guideline disputes may be moot where a mandatory minimum governs; that courts may give meaningful weight to aggravating factors not captured by the advisory range; and that communications evidence can powerfully establish leadership. For defendants engaging in criminal conspiracies from behind bars, Wilson is a cautionary tale: prison walls may limit means, but not legal accountability for leadership and the likelihood of consecutive punishment.

Disposition: Affirmed in full.