Opinion ID: 4209089
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Maintaining a Premises Enhancement

Text: We review a sentencing court’s findings of fact for clear error and its application of the guidelines de novo. United States v. Victor, 719 F.3d 1288, 1290 (11th Cir. 2013). The district court may base its findings of fact on the evidence heard at trial, facts admitted during the plea colloquy, undisputed statements in the presentence investigation report, or evidence presented at sentencing. United States v. Caraballo, 595 F.3d 1214, 1232 (11th Cir. 2010). Sentencing Guidelines § 2D1.1(b)(12) provides a two-level enhancement “[i]f the defendant maintained a premises for the purpose of manufacturing or distributing a controlled substance.” U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(12). The commentary to the guideline explains that the district court should consider (a) whether the defendant had a possessory interest in the premises and (b) the extent to which the defendant controlled access to, or activities at, the premises. See U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1, comment. (n.17). Although manufacturing and distributing a controlled substance need not be the sole use, it must be one of the “primary or principal uses,” rather than a merely “incidental or collateral use.” Id. In interpreting 21 U.S.C. § 856 (providing a separate offense for “knowingly . . . maintain[ing] any place . . . for the purpose of manufacturing, distributing, or using any controlled substance”), we have said that the critical inquiries are whether the defendant 3 Case: 16-16174 Date Filed: 10/04/2017 Page: 4 of 8 (1) exercised some degree of control over the premises; (2) made the place available for the use alleged; and (3) continued in pursuing the manufacture, distribution, or use of controlled substances. See United States v. Clavis, 956 F.2d 1079, 1090 (11th Cir. 1992). Isolated use, manufacture, or distribution, however, is not sufficient. Id. at 1090–91. The district court did not clearly err by determining that Jiggetts maintained a premises for the manufacture or distribution of drugs: the record, including Jiggetts’s own admissions at the plea colloquy, supported the district court’s conclusion that Jiggetts had a possessory interest in the Willow Lakes apartment and made the apartment available for use in manufacturing and distributing drugs on an ongoing basis, by contributing $60 per month toward the rent. Clavis, 956 F.2d at 1090; U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1, comment. (n.17). And the duration of the conspiracy, the co-conspirators’ continuous operations, and Jiggetts’s carrying and displaying a firearm on the premises to protect his co-conspirators illustrate that the use of the premises was not isolated or incidental and that Jiggetts exercised an elevated degree of control over the premises. Clavis, 956 F.2d at 1090–91. Thus, the district court properly applied the maintaining-a-premises enhancement. 4 Case: 16-16174 Date Filed: 10/04/2017 Page: 5 of 8