## 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Submitted: April 12, 2024 Filed: June 10, 2024 [Unpublished]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 court 1 imposed a bottom

- of

- the

- Guidelines sentence of 360 months in prison. Carpenter appeals, challenging th e enhancement and arguing that his sentence is substantively
unreasonable.

T he d istrict court add ed two offense levels because Carpenter “maintained a premises f or 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) & c mt . 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, 70 5 (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 co co nspirator

. Plus

, two coconspirators named Carpenter as their supplier. So t he record supports the court’s finding that a principal use of his home

was stor ing 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 70 7 (a family home is a drug premises when the defendant uses it “for the purpose of substantial drug

- trafficking activities ”).

Carpenter a lso argues that his bottom

- of

- the

- Guidelines sentence is substantively unreasonable because the district court did not appropriately consider
the need to avoid unwarranted sentenc e 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 di strict 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

un warranted disparities. Because C arpenter had a “pretty alarming” history of “extreme violence,” including domestic abuse an d assaulting police officers , t he
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.

______________________________