NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION File Name: 24a0213n.06
Case No. 2 3

- 1945
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. LESTER CHARLES STOKES, aka Jay Lester

- Charles Stokes , Defendant

- Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
OPINION

B efore : BATCHELDER, THAPAR, and MATHIS , Circuit Judges. THAPAR, Circuit Judge. Lester Stokes pled guilty to drug trafficking

. H e now challenges the application of a two

- level sentencing enhancement for maintaining a drug

- distribution premises

. Because ample evidence supp ort ed the enhancement , we affirm. While Stokes was on supervised release for drug and firearm offenses , law enforcement officers received multiple tip s that he was dealing drugs from a house on Massa chusetts Avenue. Police confirmed Stokes’ s dealing through three controlled buys. In each, Stokes drove to the transaction from the Massachusetts Avenue house in a black Chev y Impala

. P olice also place d a GPS tracker on the Impala , which showed that Stokes spent most of his time at the Massachusetts
Avenue residence

. Based on this information, police secured a warrant to search the house. They found

c ontraband throughout. From the kitchen , police recovered cocaine (657 grams ) ,No. 23

- 1945 , United States v. Stokes

- 2

-

methamphetamine (405 g rams ) , psilocybin or “ magic mushrooms ” (28 grams ) , fentanyl (2 grams ) , a bin full of marijuana , hundreds of unidentified blue pills, drug

- packaging equipment , and two digital scales covered in drug residue

. In the bedroom closet , Stokes kept a loaded pistol and an
AR

- style rifle next to a loaded magazine

. In the bedroom dresser , he had stashed wads of cash totaling $10, 6 00 , includ ing several marked bills from the controlled buys

. And in the garage and basement , Stokes stored more fentanyl (23 grams ) , several bags of marijuana, and multiple boxes of ammunition. P olice also discovered evidence that Stokes lived at the house , such as family photos on the dresser , men’s clothing in the bedroom closet , his Michigan ID on the nightstand , and packages addressed to Stokes throughout the house

. The same day, p olice arrested Stokes as he was leaving the Massachusetts Avenue residence

. In his pocket, Stokes had a wad of cash with more of the marked bills

. And in his underwear , he had methamphetamine (13 grams ) , cocaine (30 grams ) , and fifty

- one blue pills

— all in smaller , distribution

- ready baggies. Once in jail , S tokes was allowed a customary phone call, which the jail customarily recorded. Cf. United States v. Bell , 766 F.3d 634 , 636 (6th Cir. 2014)

. On the call, Stokes told his girlfriend to check if police had found t he dresser money , explained where he’d hidden other guns and drugs , and directed her to sell them

. Stokes pled guilty to possessing drugs with the intent to distri bute

. See 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(B)(ii), 841(b)(1)(B)(viii)

. The district court enhanced Stokes’s Guidelines range after finding he “ maintain ed a premises for the purpose of manufacturing or distributing a controlled substance .” U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(12). The district court then sentence d Stokes at the bottom of the enhanced range, to 168 months in prison

. On appeal, Stokes claims the court shoul d not have enhanced his Guidelines range. He doesn’t dispute that he used the Massachusetts Avenue house to store and deal drugs

. Instead, heNo. 23

- 1945 , United States v. Stokes

- 3

-

argues (1) he didn’t maintain the house , and (2) even if he did, drug distribution wasn ’t a predominate purpose . Both arguments fall short

. Maintenance. T he g overnment produced a wealth of evidence that Stokes “ maintained ” the Massachusetts Avenue residence. Most importantly, Stokes’s personal belongings were scattered throughout the house, and GPS data indicate d he rarely strayed far . This strongly suggests he lived there

. And when “ the defendant lives in the house, ” maintenance is “ easily proved

. ” United States v. Johnson , 737 F.3 d 444, 447 (6th Cir. 2013) (quotation omitted)

. That’s
because people typically control access to and activities at

— i.e., “maintain”

— the place where they live. See U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1 cmt. n.17

. Stokes certainly did . H e stored large quantities of drugs, drug proceeds, and drug paraphernalia on every floor

. See Johnson , 737 F.3d at 447 (treating storage as indicative of control) ; United States v. Jackson , No. 22

- 3164, 2024 WL 751571, at *2 (6th Cir. Feb. 23, 2024) (same)

. He also took responsibil ity to protect the home , keeping two firearms in the bedroom

. United States v. Russell , 595 F.3d 633, 64 5 (6th Cir. 2010)

. And e ven after his arrest, Stokes continued to supervise the premises , directing his girlfriend to look for drug
money he hid in th e bedroom. Id. ; accord U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1 cmt. n.17

. Put simply, Stokes was “more than just a casual visitor

. ” United States v. Taylor , 85 F.4th 386, 390 (6th Cir. 2023) (quotation omitted)

. He lived at the house , protected the house, and exerted control over items stored at the house

. In response, Stokes point s out that only his girlfriend signed the lease , while he listed his legal address as his grandmother’s house. But a defendant need not formally rent or own a home to satisfy the enhancement’s maintenance element. Russell , 595 F.3d at 644 ; Taylor , 85 F.4th at
3 89

– 9 0

. Nor is it surprising that Stokes told his probation officer he lived elsewhere . After all, Stokes was trafficking drugs from Massachusetts Avenue

— a fact he hoped to hide from lawNo. 23

- 1945 , United States v. Stokes

- 4

-

enforcement

. Cf. United States v. Cannon , 552 F. App ’ x 512 , 516 (6th Cir. 2014) (“ Drug kingpins are not known for signing leases for their drug houses. ”)

. Thus, the district court correctly determined that Stokes maintai ned the house

. Purpose

. But did Stokes maintain it for the “ purpose ” of distributing drugs? To meet this prong, the house must ha ve “ play ed a significant part in distributing drugs. ” Bell , 766 F.3d at 637 (quotation omitted). It did. P o lice witnessed Stokes use Massachusetts Avenue as the starting point for three drug deals, and they stopped a likely fourth in progress. See U.S.S.G § 2D1.1 cmt.
n.17 ( considering distribution frequency )

. Stokes says three or four controlled sales over a few months isn’t all that many

. But see United States v. Broadnax , 777 F. App ’ x 137, 142 (6th Cir. 2019) (four transactions ) . But th ose are just the deals law enforcement caught . The volume of drugs and drug proceeds found in the home suggest the observed transactions were the “ tip of the iceberg. ” See United States v. Terry , 83 F.4th 1039 , 1043 (6th Cir. 2023)

. Regardless, in addition to Stokes’s distribution frequency , w e a lso evaluate the extent to which Stokes used Massachusetts Avenue “ to advance ” his drug trafficking

. Johnson , 737 F.3d at 448. That includes “ stor [ing] a controlled substance for the purpose of distribution. ” U.S.S.G § 2D1.1 cmt. n.17 . Here, Stokes processed, packaged, and stored distribution

- level quantities of drugs at the Massachusetts Avenue residence

. And the presence of various tools of the trad e

— like scales, packaging equipment, cash, guns , and ammunition

— confirms that Stokes planned to sell the drugs , just as police had seen him do thrice before

. See Johnson , 737 F.3d at 447

– 48; Bell , 766 F.3d at 637 ; United States v. Heard , No. 23

- 1225, 2024 WL 1049480 , at *5 (6th Cir. Mar. 11, 2024)

. Accordingly, the district court correctly determined th at the premises play ed a significant part in Stokes’s drug

- trafficking scheme. We affirm.