164334P.pdf   11/16/2017  United States  v.  Candice Davis
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  16-4334
   U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis   
   [PUBLISHED] [Benton, Author, with Colloton and Kelly, Circuit Judges] 
   Criminal Case - sentencing. Defendant's objection to references in 
   presentence investigation report identifying fifty individuals she 
   recruited is not material to an enhancement under Guidelines sec. 3B1.1(b) 
   because the enhancement required only involvement of five or more 
   participants; defendant stipulated to involvement of 15 participants and 
   stipulated to enhancement under sec. 2B1.1(b)(10)(C). Thus, any error in 
   overruling defendant's objection was harmless. District court did not err 
   in finding defendant was involved in the scheme before 2015, as agent had 
   materials and reports since 2013. As for enhancement under sec. 3B1.1(b) 
   (manager or supervisor), evidence showed defendant exercised control over 
   at least one participant and thus did not err in applying three-level 
   enhancement. Denial of two-level reduction for acceptance of 
   responsibility was not error in light of defendant's multiple objections 
   to the PSR.