Guidelines Manual § 3B1.3 cmt. n. 1. There is no requirement for the position to be the exclusive or determinative cause of the crime’s commission or concealment. Here, the parties do not dispute that Mr. Merriman retained and exercised authority to make investments on behalf of his investors with complete discretion to invest however he desired. Investors did not scrutinize his financial accounting or investing decisions, nor was he obligated to disclose such matters. We see no clear error in the district court’s conclusion that Mr. Merriman’s authorized and exercised discretion and the resultant lack of transparency between Mr. Merriman and his investors significantly contributed to his ability to avoid detection. Cf. United, States v. Chimal) 976 F.2d 608, 614 (10th Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>). It does not matter whether Mr. Merriman could
recognizing the supervisory power of appellate courts holding that defendants supervisory position enabled her to embezzle funds while avoiding detection over a long period of time holding that while town counsel had final supervisory authority over the hiring and firing of employees in plaintiffs position it did not have supervisory authority over the mayors constructive discharge of plaintiff holding over holding that defendant violated section 4b when she misappropriated pool participant funds by soliciting funds for trading and then trading only a small percentage of those funds while disbursing the rest of the funds to investors herself and her family