Opinion ID: 3014617
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Enhancement for Proximity to a School

Text: We exercise plenary review over questions of law related to the District Court’s application of the Sentencing Guidelines. James, 78 F.3d at 855. Over questions of fact, the standard of review is clear error, with due deference to the District Court’s application of the Guidelines to the facts. United States v. Thomas, 327 F.3d 253, 255 (3d Cir. 2003). The District Court applied a two-point enhancement to Santana’s sentence under Sentencing Guideline § 2D1.2, for distribution in proximity to a school. Santana’s argument that this enhancement was inappropriate seems to stem from his statement at the sentencing hearing that he did not realize the Bailey Organization was operating in proximity to a school. Santana’s knowledge, or lack thereof, does not defeat the applicability of the two-point enhancement. See United States v. Rodriguez, 961 F.2d 1089, 1092-93 (3d Cir. 1992) (holding that mere possession within proximity to a school was sufficient to apply enhancement; intent was immaterial).