United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit 

___________________________

No. 23-2522

___________________________ 

United States of America

 Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Jeffrey Leon Carpenter

 Defendant - Appellant

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Iowa - Eastern

____________ 

Submitted: April 12, 2024

Filed: June 10, 2024

[Unpublished]

____________ 

Before LOKEN, MELLOY, and KOBES, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

Jeffrey Carpenter pleaded guilty to one count of conspiring to distribute 

methamphetamine, 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), 846, and two counts of 

distributing methamphetamine, § 841(a)(1), (b)(1). After overruling his objection to 
-2- 

a sentencing enhancement for maintaining a drug premises, the district court1

imposed a bottom-of-the-Guidelines sentence of 360 months in prison. Carpenter 

appeals, challenging the enhancement and arguing that his sentence is substantively 

unreasonable. 

The district court added two offense levels because Carpenter “maintained a 

premises for the purpose of manufacturing or distributing a controlled substance,” 

“including storage of a controlled substance for the purpose of distribution.” 

U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(12) & cmt. n.17. Carpenter argues that the district court clearly 

erred by finding that one of the “primary or principal uses” of his home was storing 

and distributing drugs. See § 2D1.1 cmt. n.17; United States v. Miller, 698 F.3d 

699, 705 (8th Cir. 2012) (standard of review). We disagree. At sentencing, a 

detective testified that the methamphetamine purchased in two controlled buys came 

from Carpenter’s home and that Carpenter had transported grocery bags of the drug 

from his home to a coconspirator. Plus, two coconspirators named Carpenter as their 

supplier. So the record supports the court’s finding that a principal use of his home 

was storing drugs for later distribution. See United States v. Hernandez Lopez, 24 

F.4th 1205, 1208 (8th Cir. 2022) (upholding enhancement where defendant stored 

drugs and prepared them for distribution in his basement); Miller, 698 F.3d at 707 

(a family home is a drug premises when the defendant uses it “for the purpose of 

substantial drug-trafficking activities”). 

 

Carpenter also argues that his bottom-of-the-Guidelines sentence is 

substantively unreasonable because the district court did not appropriately consider 

the need to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(6). We 

review a sentence’s substantive reasonableness for abuse of discretion. United 

States v. John, 27 F.4th 644, 651 (8th Cir. 2022). 

1

The Honorable Stephanie M. Rose, Chief Judge, United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Iowa. 
-3- 

When a district court “correctly calculates and carefully reviews the 

Guidelines range,” like here, it “necessarily gives significant weight and 

consideration to the need to avoid the unwarranted disparity that the Sentencing 

Commission sought to prevent through its setting of the Guidelines ranges.” United 

States v. Bueno, 549 F.3d 1176, 1181 (8th Cir. 2008). And what matters are

unwarranted disparities. Because Carpenter had a “pretty alarming” history of 

“extreme violence,” including domestic abuse and assaulting police officers, the 

district court properly found that there were “aggravating circumstances that were 

not adequately taken into account by a shorter term of imprisonment.” See United 

States v. Lovato, 868 F.3d 681, 684 (8th Cir. 2017). 

 

We affirm the district court’s judgment.

______________________________