not an issue or element at trial. In any event, the trial and
sentencing hearing testimony are not in direct conflict, and
even if they were, the court would be free to reject portions of
the trial testimony in favor of the Agent’s information.
Moreover, while the court’s reasoning was not extensive, the
court heard lengthy argument on the issue and clarified several
points, clearly demonstrating that the court understood the
factors involved in the role enhancement determination.
The remaining question, then, is whether Fisher was a
member of the organization as she was the fifth person cited by
the district court. The district court relied on the Agent’s
testimony that Fisher counted money on one occasion. However,
when Fisher counted the money, contrary to the district court’s
statements, she was presumably unaware of the counterfeiting, as
Wyatt was attempting to use her for quality control.
Nevertheless, once Fisher became aware of the counterfeiting,
she was present when money was being printed and distributed in
her home. Moreover, Fisher followed Wyatt’s instructions to
remove evidence from their home and testify falsely at the grand
jury. Accordingly, while Fisher’s money counting did not
constitute participation in the counterfeiting organization,
Fisher was, in fact, a member of the organization. Accordingly,
given that there were at least five members of the organization