must determine “(1) whether the defendant occupied a position of trust; and (2) whether the defendant abused that position in a manner that significantly facilitated the commission or concealment of the offense.” United States v. West, 56 F.3d 216, 219 (D.C.Cir.1995). 1. Position of Trust. Application note 1 accompanying § 3B1.3, as amended in 1993, indicates that the defining characteristic of a “position of trust” is “professional or managerial discretion (i.e., substantial discretionary judgment that is ordinarily given considerable deference).” To illustrate, the commentary provides that a bank teller who steals from the till is not subject to the enhancement because his or her position does not entail professional or managerial discretion. See id.; see also West, 56 F.3d at 221 (<HOLDING>). On the other hand, because a bank executive
holding that the beneficiary of a trust was not the real party in interest regarding rights owned by the trust holding that the position of special trust is not dependent on the closeness of the defendants relationship with the child holding that the statute of limitations cannot bar appellants claim that a constructive trust should be imposed  because a constructive trust is an equitable remedy and therefore not subject to the statute holding that a third party who receives trust property on inquiry notice that a trustee has misappropriated trust funds is also liable for breach of trust holding that courier is not in position of trust