Opinion ID: 4517457
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Drug Premises Sentence Enhancement

Text: Next, Eustice challenges the district court’s application of a two-level sentence enhancement for maintaining a drug premises pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(12). He argues that this was (1) procedural error because the district court did not consider commentary note 17 to § 2D1.1(b)(12), and (2) substantive error because only bare assertions supported the enhancement. 5 Case: 18-11519 Document: 00515349193 Page: 6 Date Filed: 03/18/2020 No. 18-11519 The government agrees that Eustice preserved these arguments. Therefore, we review the district court’s interpretation of the guidelines de novo and its findings of fact for clear error. United States v. Haines, 803 F.3d 713, 743 (5th Cir. 2015). Guideline § 2D1.1(b)(12) instructs the district court to apply a two-level sentence enhancement “[i]f the defendant maintained a premises for the purpose of manufacturing or distributing a controlled substance.” The enhancement “applies to a defendant who knowingly maintains a premises . . . for the purpose of manufacturing or distributing a controlled substance, including storage of a controlled substance for the purpose of distribution.” § 2D1.1(b)(12) cmt. n.17. Although manufacturing or distributing need not be the sole purpose for which the premises is maintained, it 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.” Id. “In making this determination, the court should consider how frequently the premises was used by the defendant . . . for lawful purposes.” Id. The district court did not err procedurally. At sentencing, the district court need not discuss all the facts and reasoning relevant to its guidelines calculation. United States v. Guzman-Reyes, 853 F.3d 260, 266 (5th Cir. 2017). An adoption of the PSR’s factual findings and conclusions is sufficient as long as those findings and conclusions are adequate to support the sentence imposed. Id. In this case, the probation officer discussed commentary note 17 to § 2D1.1(b)(12) in the PSR addendum and concluded that application of the sentence enhancement was warranted. At the sentencing hearing, the district court adopted “the Probation Officer’s . . . fact findings and conclusions as to the appropriate Guideline calculations.” Therefore, the district court implicitly considered commentary note 17 to § 2D1.1(b)(12) by adopting the probation officer’s analysis. 6 Case: 18-11519 Document: 00515349193 Page: 7 Date Filed: 03/18/2020 No. 18-11519 Nor did the district court err substantively. The district court may consider any information with sufficient indicia of reliability when crafting a sentence. Valdez, 453 F.3d at 267. Here, the district court relied on the information in the PSR, the PSR addendum, Eustice’s objections, and the government’s responses to Eustice’s objections. The items that law enforcement seized from Eustice’s residence, including digital scales, and the text messages that Eustice exchanged with Murfield, which reference numerous drug transactions at Eustice’s residence, constitute specific sources of evidence with sufficient indicia of reliability to support the district court’s application of the enhancement. Therefore, the district court did not err in applying the drug premises sentence enhancement.