Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca7-16-01047/USCOURTS-ca7-16-01047-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
Paul Winfield
Appellant

Document Text:

In the 

United States Court of Appeals 

For the Seventh Circuit ____________________

Nos. 16‐1047 & 16‐1048

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff‐Appellee,

v.

PAUL WINFIELD,

Defendant‐Appellee.

____________________

Appeals from the United States District Court for the

Western District of Wisconsin.

Nos. 01‐cr‐9‐bbc‐3 & 3:15CR00081‐001 — Barbara B. Crabb, Judge.

____________________

ARGUED DECEMBER 13, 2016 — DECIDED JANUARY 18, 2017

____________________

Before POSNER, KANNE, and SYKES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM. These consolidated appeals raise a single is‐

sue: whether the district court erred by adjusting Paul Win‐

field’s offense level upwards based on the court’s finding

that Winfield “maintained” his apartment for distributing

controlled substances, see U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(12). Winfield

argues that the guideline doesn’t apply here because drug

dealing was not among his “primary or principal” uses for

Case: 16-1047 Document: 28 Filed: 01/18/2017 Pages: 5
2 Nos. 16‐1047 & 16‐1048

the apartment, see U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1 cmt. n.17. We disagree

and affirm the district court’s judgments.

A police informant bought heroin and methamphetamine

from Winfield during four controlled buys conducted over a

twelve‐week period. For the buys, all of which occurred at

Winfield’s apartment, the informant wore a hidden video

camera. The camera recorded little useful video, but it did

clearly capture the informant’s conversations with Winfield.

During the first controlled buy, the informant purchased

3 grams of heroin and reported seeing “a few ounces” of

suspected heroin that Winfield had retrieved from a plastic

container hidden behind a television.

A week later, Winfield met the informant in a parking lot

and asked the informant to follow him home, explaining that

he needed to make a “drop” on the way. Winfield then sold

the informant 31⁄2 grams of heroin and gave the informant a

sample of a substance he said contained ecstasy (later analy‐

sis showed that it actually contained methamphetamine).

The video of this meeting shows two ounces of suspected

heroin, a digital scale, and cash on a kitchen counter.  

The third buy took place the following month when Win‐

field sold the informant another 31⁄2 grams of heroin and a

gram of “ecstasy” (again, it actually contained methamphet‐

amine). The informant reported seeing about two ounces of

heroin on a plate in the kitchen and an ounce of “ecstasy”

hidden in an aerosol can with a hidden compartment.

Over a month later, Winfield sold the informant 2 grams

of heroin and 5 grams of a substance containing metham‐

phetamine (not ecstasy, as promised). Winfield retrieved the

Case: 16-1047 Document: 28 Filed: 01/18/2017 Pages: 5
Nos. 16‐1047 & 16‐1048 3

drugs from the aerosol can, and the informant said he saw

about 60 grams of heroin and 30 grams of “ecstasy.”

Three days after this last buy, the police obtained a war‐

rant and searched Winfield’s apartment. They found almost

$3000 in a closet, and a gram of heroin and drug parapherna‐

lia in Winfield’s girlfriend’s purse. In the garage, stashed in

the trunk of Winfield’s car (in a brake‐fluid canister that had

a hidden compartment), the police also found 27 grams of

methamphetamine and 38 grams of heroin.

During a post‐arrest interview, Winfield admitted that

the police had not found more drugs in the apartment be‐

cause “[h]e had flushed anything he had down the toilet

when the SWAT team was approaching.”

A grand jury charged Winfield with distributing heroin

and methamphetamine, possessing both drugs with intent to

distribute, and maintaining a place for the purpose of dis‐

tributing controlled substances, see 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1),

856(a)(1). Winfield pleaded guilty to one count of distrib‐

uting heroin, and the government dropped the other counts.

At sentencing, a probation officer recommended that

Winfield receive a two‐level upward adjustment because he

“maintained a premises for the purpose of manufacturing or

distributing a controlled substance,” U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(12).

The officer explained that this “stash house” guideline was

appropriate because each of the four controlled buys had oc‐

curred at Winfield’s apartment, and in his garage the police

had found drugs. Winfield objected, arguing that this evi‐

dence did not support an inference that drug dealing was a

“primary or principal” use for the apartment, as the guide‐

line requires, see U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1 cmt. n.17.

Case: 16-1047 Document: 28 Filed: 01/18/2017 Pages: 5
4 Nos. 16‐1047 & 16‐1048

The district court overruled Winfield’s objections and

applied the adjustment. The court explained that because the

informant saw additional quantities of drugs during the four

controlled buys, it was reasonable to believe that a buyer

easily could arrange to buy drugs from Winfield at his

apartment. And since Winfield at the time of his arrest pri‐

marily had been living off the proceeds of drug sales, the

court reasoned, he must have been “making regular, fre‐

quent sales of drugs from his home.” From this evidence, the

court concluded that drug distribution was one of Winfield’s

primary uses for the apartment and that this warranted ap‐

plication of the stash‐house guideline. The court then calcu‐

lated an advisory range of 63–78 months’ imprisonment.

The court sentenced Winfield below the guidelines range

to 55 months. At the same time the court imposed a concur‐

rent 27‐month sentence because Winfield’s conduct violated

his supervised release for an earlier drug‐trafficking convic‐

tion. (This concurrent sentence is the basis of appeal number

16‐1047, but Winfield does not challenge the revocation of

his supervised release.)

On appeal Winfield challenges only the district court’s

decision to impose the “stash house” guideline. He says the

guideline was unwarranted because “this case is not the sort

of multi‐kilogram, long‐going storage case that supports a

premises enhancement.”

Winfield reads too much into the guideline. Nothing in

the text of § 2D1.1(b)(12) or its application note requires a

sentencing court to find that the defendant stored multiple

kilograms of drugs over an extended period of time; rather,

the court needs to find that a drug‐related activity was just

one of the defendant’s “primary or principal” uses for the

Case: 16-1047 Document: 28 Filed: 01/18/2017 Pages: 5
Nos. 16‐1047 & 16‐1048 5

premises—as opposed to an “incidental or collateral” use.

U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1 cmt. n.17. “In making this determination,

the court should consider how frequently the premises was

used by the defendant for manufacturing or distributing a

controlled substance and how frequently the premises was

used by the defendant for lawful purposes.” Id.  

The record supports the district court’s conclusion that

Winfield’s drug‐related uses for his apartment were not

merely “incidental” to his residence there. The police seized

heroin and methamphetamine from Winfield’s garage, and

would have found drugs in the apartment itself had Win‐

field not—as he later admitted to police—“flushed anything

he had down the toilet when the SWAT team was approach‐

ing.” Moreover, in the twelve weeks before the raid, the in‐

formant bought drugs from Winfield at his apartment four

times and spotted additional drugs and drug paraphernalia

during each transaction. And given that Winfield at the time

of his arrest was “primarily living off proceeds from drug

sales,” it follows, as the district court reasonably concluded,

that he must have stored or sold additional quantities of

drugs at his apartment than the relatively modest amounts

recovered by police.  

Winfield maintains that he used the apartment primarily

as a place to live, so any drug distribution was “‘incidental

or collateral’ to his predominantly lawful uses of his home.”

But the guideline is appropriate when a defendant uses his

home for drug‐related purposes. See United States v. Sanchez,

810 F.3d 494, 495–97 (7th Cir. 2016); United States v. Evans,

826 F.3d 934, 937–39 (7th Cir. 2016); United States v. Flores‐

Olague, 717 F.3d 526, 530–34 (7th Cir. 2013).  

AFFIRMED.

Case: 16-1047 Document: 28 Filed: 01/18/2017 Pages: 5