depending on the circumstances. For example, United States v. Gonzales, 436 F.3d 560 (5th Cir.2006), involved a law enforcement officer whose Section 3B1.1(c) role enhancement was affirmed on appeal. Gonzales was the designated team leader in an INS unit assigned to track down and deport illegal aliens. He and his co-defendants were convicted of criminal civil rights violations for excessive force and indifference to medical needs while apprehending a suspect. Defendant’s conduct included supervising his subordinates in the criminal activities and participating in them himself. There the court distinguished DeGovanni on the facts, observing that Gonzales “both led and participated in the criminal activity.” Id. at 584-85; see United States v. Gotti 459 F.3d 296, 347-50 (2d Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Woods, 335 F.3d 993, 1002-03
holding there was no clear error in district courts refusal to apply section 3blla based on factual finding that despite acting boss status defendant did not exercise sufficient level of control to be deemed an organizer or leader of the enterprise holding that we review a district courts refusal to apply ussg  5c12 for clear error because it is a factual finding holding that role in the offense is a factual determination albeit complex a district courts decision not to apply an adjustment based on such a determination is reversed only for clear error holding that we review for clear error the bankruptcy courts factual findings holding that the district courts good faith finding is reviewed for clear error