
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Bryan Wayne CASON, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 07-10167
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Feb. 14, 2008.
    David Lee Jarvis, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Jason Douglas Hawkins, Federal Public Defender’s Office Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Bryan Cason appeals his conviction by a jury of conspiracy to commit fraud in connection with the production of false identification documents and the possession of stolen mail, fraud and related activity in connection with unlawful production of false identification documents, possession of stolen mail, and tampering with a witness. He argues that the district court erred when it increased his offense level by two levels under U.S.S.G. § 3Bl.l(c) for his role in the offense.

A defendant qualifies for an adjustment under § 3B 1.1(c) if he was the organizer, leader, manager, or supervisor of at least one other participant. United States v. Lewis, 476 F.3d 369, 390 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 127 S.Ct. 2893, 167 L.Ed.2d 1164 (2007); § 3B1.1 (comment, n. 2.). Factors that the district court considers include the exercise of decisionmaking authority, the nature of participation in the commission of the offense, the degree of participation in planning or organizing the offense, the nature and scope of the illegal activity, and the degree of control and authority exercised over others. § 3B1.1 (comment, n. 4).

Testimony established that without Ca-son’s computer and expertise, neither Hunsuckle nor Julian could have committed fraud. Hunsuckle’s testimony established that Cason directed her as a secretary when he advised her as to what mail to keep, what mail to throw out, and what to record. Cason mischaracterizes Hun-suckle’s testimony that she did not “like” to write checks over a certain amount as testimony that she maintained decision-making authority.

Moreover, Cason’s emphasis on testimony that he recruited Hunsuckle and that she profited the most from the venture is unavailing. In light of the record as a whole, the finding that Cason functioned as a leader or organizer of the fraud is plausible and is not clear error. See United States v. Gonzales, 436 F.3d 560, 584 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 547 U.S. 1139, 126 S.Ct. 2045, 164 L.Ed.2d 799, and cert. denied, 547 U.S. 1180, 126 S.Ct. 2362, 165 L.Ed.2d 280, and cert. denied, 547 U.S. 1180, 126 S.Ct. 2363, 165 L.Ed.2d 280, and cert. denied, — U.S. -, 127 S.Ct. 157, 166 L.Ed.2d 39 (2006); United States v. Turner, 319 F.3d 716, 725 (5th Cir.2003); United States v. Parker, 133 F.3d 322, 330 (5th Cir.1998).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     