agent during part of the conspiracy and therefore cannot be counted as a participant for that part, see U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1 application note 1, the crime still involved the requisite number of participants for an enhancement. Furthermore, the court should have considered Andreas’ control over the foreign co-conspirators at the Irvine meeting as counting toward the minimum number of participants needed for the § 3B1.1 enhancement. A co-conspirator who used his power to guide or direct other eonspir- ators qualifies as an organizer even though his control was not absolute. See Kamoga, 177 F.3d at 621. The need to negotiate some details of the conspiracy with the cartel members also does not strip a defendant of the organizer role. See United States v. Evans, 92 F.3d 540, 545 (7th Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Barnes, 993 F.2d 680, 685
recognizing possibility that landlord had administrative claim for postpetition conversion of its property recognizing the possibility but denying relief recognizing the possibility that a defendant could have been prejudiced by the actual conduct of a codefendants defense holding that a sentencing court may warn a defendant of the possibility of a sentence enhancement recognizing possibility of collective leadership fulfilling  3b11