over another partici pant, if he exercised management responsibility over the property, assets, or activities of a criminal organization. United States v. Delgado, 672 F.3d 320, 345 (5th Cir.2012) (en banc), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 133 S.Ct. 525, 184 L.Ed.2d 339 (2012). The court in Delgado explained that because the defendant “eontrol[led] a large quantity of drugs and the truck used to transport them,” and “made arrangements for their transportation and delivery,” the district court’s finding was not clearly erroneous. Id. According to Delgado, a § 3B1.1 adjustment may be based on either control over people or management of assets. Id. We have followed and applied Delgado’s interpretation of § 3B1.1, cmt. n.2. See United States v. St. Junius, 739 F.3d 193, 208-09 (5th Cir.2013) (<HOLDING>). Likewise, we are bound by Delgado. See United
holding that the district courts finding of no discrimination was not clearly erroneous because the finding was supported by the record holding that a trial court should charge only those aspects of an aggravating circumstance supported by the evidence in a case holding that the record supported the district courts award of damages holding that the district courts finding of no discrimination under title vii was not clearly erroneous because the finding was supported by the record holding that the district courts finding of an aggravating role was plausibly supported by evidence that the defendant signed important documents including paychecks and sent correspondence as the owner of an organization engaged in health care fraud