Court Opinion

ID: 9375858
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-01 01:00:23.416294+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:02.405040
License: Public Domain

Case: 21-30676        Document: 00516659666             Page: 1      Date Filed: 02/28/2023

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit
                                                                              United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                       Fifth Circuit
                                      No. 21-30676
                                    Summary Calendar                                 FILED
                                                                              February 28, 2023
                                                                                Lyle W. Cayce
   United States of America,                                                         Clerk

                                                                     Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                            versus

   Quintarence Morris,

                                                                 Defendant—Appellant.

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Western District of Louisiana
                              USDC No. 1:20-CR-254-1

   Before Jones, Haynes, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
         Quintarence Morris appeals his within-guidelines 120-month
   sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction for distribution of
   heroin. He asserts that the district court erred in applying the two-level

         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
         .
Case: 21-30676       Document: 00516659666          Page: 2   Date Filed: 02/28/2023

                                     No. 21-30676

   enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(12) for maintaining a premises for
   the purpose of manufacturing or distributing a controlled substance and erred
   in applying the two-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1) for
   possessing a dangerous weapon.
          The “district court’s application of § 2D1.1(b)(12) is a factual finding
   reviewed for clear error.” United States v. Haines, 803 F.3d 713, 744 (5th Cir.
   2015). Morris contends that the premises enhancement should not have
   applied because the Government failed to show that the frequency of the drug
   sales outweighed the primary use of his home as a residence. He also asks
   this court to adopt the “totality of the circumstances” test set forth in United
   States v. Murphy, 901 F.3d 1185 (10th Cir. 2018). We have held that the use
   of a premises as a residence does not preclude application of the premises
   enhancement where the use of the residence for the purpose of drug
   distribution is one of the primary uses of the residence. United States v.
   Galicia, 983 F.3d 842, 844 (5th Cir. 2020). The record reflects that one of
   the primary uses of Morris’s home was for drug distribution. Accordingly,
   the district court did not clearly err in applying the premises enhancement.
   See id. at 845.
          The district court’s application of § 2D1.1(b)(1) is also a factual
   finding reviewed for clear error. See United States v. King, 773 F.3d 48, 53
   (5th Cir. 2014). The Government showed that a firearm was in the same
   location as drugs and drug paraphernalia in Morris’s home, and Morris fails
   to show that it was clearly improbable that the weapon was connected to the
   offense. See King, 773 F.3d at 53. Thus, the district court’s application of
   § 2D1.1(b)(1) was not clearly erroneous. See id.
          AFFIRMED.

                                          2