Opinion ID: 4469816
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Lamaar Moore

Text: Moore pleaded guilty to conspiracy to manufacture, distribute, and possess with intent to distribute at least 100 kilograms of a mixture and substance containing 1 The Honorable Rebecca Goodgame Ebinger, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa. -2- marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(B), and 846, and possession with intent to distribute less than 50 kilograms of a mixture and substance containing marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(D). Before sentencing, Moore objected to the presentence report’s recommendation that his base offense level be increased by three for his aggravating role in the offense, see U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(b), and by two for maintaining a premises for the purpose of manufacturing or distributing controlled substances, see U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(12). The district court overruled Moore’s objections and applied the enhancements. Moore’s total offense level was 30, his criminal history category was III, and his Guidelines sentencing range was 121 to 151 months’ imprisonment. The district court varied downward, imposing a 108-month sentence on the conspiracy count and a concurrent 60-month sentence on the possession count. Moore argues that the district court clearly erred in finding that he had acted as a manager or supervisor in the drug conspiracy. See United States v. Alcalde, 818 F.3d 791, 794 (8th Cir. 2016) (standard of review). Guidelines § 3B1.1(b) instructs the district court to apply a three-level increase “[i]f the defendant was a manager or supervisor . . . and the criminal activity involved five or more participants or was otherwise extensive.” We have said that a defendant may be subject to the enhancement even if he managed or supervised only one participant in a single transaction. United States v. Irlmeier, 750 F.3d 759, 764 (8th Cir. 2014). A witness testified at Moore’s sentencing hearing that he once overheard Moore direct his girlfriend to obtain marijuana from a certain location and sell it at a certain price to Moore’s customer. Moore acknowledges that his girlfriend sometimes sold marijuana for him when he was traveling, but he contends that he did not control her actions because they were participants in a joint enterprise. The district court’s finding to the contrary is not clearly erroneous, however, because the evidence permits a finding that Moore managed or supervised his girlfriend with respect to at least one transaction. -3- Moore next argues that the district court clearly erred in finding that he maintained his residence for the purpose of distributing a controlled substance. See United States v. Miller, 698 F.3d 699, 705 (8th Cir. 2012) (standard of review). Moore shared the residence with his girlfriend. He claims that it was primarily their family home and that there is “little evidence that the couple used the residence for the business itself.” Moore’s Br. 11. Guidelines § 2D1.1(b)(12) instructs the district court to apply a two-level increase for “maintain[ing] a premises for the purpose of manufacturing or distributing a controlled substance.” For the enhancement to apply, drug distribution “need not be the sole purpose for which the premises was maintained, but must be one of the defendant’s primary or principal uses for the premises, rather than one of the defendant’s incidental or collateral uses for the premises.” U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1 cmt. n.17. We have held that the enhancement applies “when a defendant uses the premises for the purpose of substantial drug-trafficking activities, even if the premises was also [the] family home at the times in question.” Miller, 698 F.3d at 707.2 Moore conceded that drug transactions occurred at his residence. When the apartment was searched, officers seized nine empty one-pound vacuum seal bags with marijuana residue, approximately two pounds of high-grade marijuana, digital scales, and clear plastic baggies, which the district court found to be “substantial indicia of high levels of trafficking at the home.” We conclude that the district court did not clearly err in finding that Moore maintained his residence for the purpose of distributing marijuana.