Opinion ID: 2680180
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Maintaining a premises

Text: Next, Cintora-Gonzalez challenges the district court’s finding that he used his apartment for drug manufacturing and distribution. Section 2D1.1(b)(12) of the Guidelines calls for a two-level enhancement “[i]f the defendant maintained a premises for the purpose of manufacturing or distributing a controlled substance,” including storage of a controlled substance for the purposes of distribution. U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(12) & comment. (n.17). To determine whether the enhancement is applicable, the court should consider “whether the defendant held a possessory interest in [] the premises and [] the extent to which the defendant controlled access to, or activities at, the premises.” Id. § 2D1.1, comment. (n.17). Manufacturing or distributing a controlled substance 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. In making this determination, the court should consider how frequently the premises was used by the defendant for manufacturing or distributing a controlled substance and how frequently the premises was used by the defendant for lawful purposes. Id. Few circuits have addressed this guideline, and we have done so only in a single unpublished opinion. United States v. Vega, 500 F. App’x 889, 891 (11th Cir. 2012) (unpublished) (concluding that the district court did not plainly err in 9 Case: 13-13157 Date Filed: 06/24/2014 Page: 10 of 21 applying the enhancement where the defendant sold cocaine from his home on multiple occasions). We thus turn to the reasoning of our sister circuits. The Eighth Circuit considered the application of § 2D1.1(b)(12) to a premises that served both as the defendants’ home and a stash house. United States v. Miller, 698 F.3d 699, 706-07 (8th Cir. 2012). There, the court looked at numerous factors, such as quantities of drugs involved, storage of “tools of the trade,” maintenance of business records, and customer interactions, to determine whether the principal use of the residence was drug distribution. The court had little difficulty applying the enhancement to Mr. Miller, the primary drug trafficker involved. But as to his wife, the court found the enhancement applicable as well, despite her more limited role in the distribution, because she was specifically involved in at least three transactions at the home, she used her son to deliver drugs to one of the buyers, and she collected payment for drugs on several occasions. Moreover, the court determined that under 21 U.S.C. § 856 and § 2D1.1(b)(12), Congress intended to deter the use of primary residences as stash houses. In light of all of these factors, the court found that the enhancement would apply to a defendant who used her primary residence to distribute drugs. Id. at 705-07. Relying on Miller, the Seventh Circuit considered and applied the enhancement to a defendant who sold drugs out of his home. See United States v. Flores-Olague, 717 F.3d 526, 531-32 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 134 S.Ct. 211 10 Case: 13-13157 Date Filed: 06/24/2014 Page: 11 of 21 (2013).3 The court explained that a defendant “maintained” a premises for drug distribution if “he owns or rents premises, or exercises control over them, and for a sustained period of time, uses those premises to manufacture, store, or sell drugs, or directs others to those premises to obtain drugs.” Id. at 532 (citing United States v. Acosta, 534 F.3d 574, 591 (7th Cir. 2008)). The court also considered the number of drug transactions that occurred on the premises. Because the defendant in Flores-Olague had stored cocaine on the premises for several years, sold it to at least ten regular customers, and had firearms in the home, the court concluded that the enhancement applied. The Sixth Circuit upheld the application of § 2D1.1(b)(12) where the defendant had both a possessory interest in the residence and controlled the access to the home. See United States v. Johnson, 737 F.3d 444, 447 (6th Cir. 2013). In reaching this conclusion, the Sixth Circuit explained that “[T]he more characteristics of a business that are present” in the home—such as “tools of the trade (e.g., laboratory equipment, scales, guns and ammunition to protect the inventory and profits),” “profits,” including large quantities of cash, and “multiple employees or customers”—“the more likely it is that the property is being used ‘for 3 The Seventh Circuit first addressed § 2D1.1(b)(12) in United States v. Sanchez, 710 F.3d 724 (7th Cir. 2013), vacated by, 134 S.Ct. 146 (2013). Because Sanchez has been vacated, albeit on other grounds, we rely on the analysis in Flores-Olague. 11 Case: 13-13157 Date Filed: 06/24/2014 Page: 12 of 21 the purpose of’ [prohibited] drug activities.” Id. at 447-48 (quoting United States v. Verners, 53 F.3d 291, 295-97 (10th Cir. 1995) (discussing 21 U.S.C. § 856)). Relying on this persuasive authority, we conclude that the district court properly applied § 2D1.1(b)(12) to Cintora-Gonzalez’s guidelines calculations. The evidence at trial showed that Cintora-Gonzalez used his apartment for the purpose of manufacturing or distributing drugs. Cintora-Gonzalez concedes his proprietary interest in the premises. And the evidence showed Cintora-Gonzalez controlled access to and activities at the apartment. Cintora-Gonzalez’s former girlfriend, Brenda Perez, testified that she leased the apartment on his behalf. Additionally, Perez observed drugs in the apartment “[e]very time” she visited; she observed Cintora-Gonzalez chop up and mix a block of cocaine in the kitchen; there were boxes of baggies in the apartment; and Cintora-Gonzalez “always” had a gun in the bedroom. Perez’s observations were consistent with the drugs, multiple firearms, ammunition, plastic baggies, digital scale, acetone, and counterfeit currency recovered by law enforcement agents after they searched the apartment. The presence of these “tools of the trade” supports the district court’s conclusion that Cintora-Gonzalez maintained this residence for the purpose of drug distribution. Additionally, the evidence showed that CintoraGonzalez directed others to weigh and distribute drugs when he was out. Although 12 Case: 13-13157 Date Filed: 06/24/2014 Page: 13 of 21 we do not know the number of transactions that occurred at the apartment, under these facts, we conclude that the application of § 2D1.1(b)(12) was proper.