Court Opinion

ID: 9940218
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-13 18:00:47.371857+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:44:39.617200
License: Public Domain

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                            FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
                               ________________

                                     No. 23-1215
                                  ________________

                           UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

                                           v.

                                  JOSEPH C. LONG,

                                              Appellant
                                  ________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                              for the District of New Jersey
                        (D.C. Criminal No. 1-21-cr-00493-001)
                    District Judge: Honorable Joseph H. Rodriguez
                                   ________________

                      Submitted under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
                                on November 1, 2023

                Before: JORDAN, ROTH and AMBRO, Circuit Judges

                           (Opinion filed: February 13, 2024)
                                  ________________

                                      OPINION *
                                  ________________

*
 This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.
ROTH, Circuit Judge

       Joseph Long pleaded guilty to one count of possession with intent to distribute

cocaine. The District Court applied several enhancements to his sentence, including the

“Career Offender” and “Stash House” enhancements, resulting in a sentencing range of

168 to 210 months’ imprisonment under the United States Sentencing Guidelines. It then

sentenced Long to 156 months’ imprisonment. It correctly applied the Career Offender

enhancement, and any error in the application of the Stash House enhancement was

harmless in this case. We will, therefore, affirm the judgment of sentence.

                                   I.     BACKGROUND

       On January 15, 2020, police officers searched Long’s apartment and his mother’s

residence. During the search of Long’s apartment, officers seized cocaine and other drug-

trafficking paraphernalia. During the search of his mother’s residence, officers seized

cocaine, heroin, marijuana, drug paraphernalia, firearms, and cash. On March 24, 2022,

Long pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C.

§§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(c).

       Long faced a statutory maximum sentence of 20 years’ imprisonment. After

accounting for his previous state felony convictions, 1 the presentence investigation report

(PSR) calculated the applicable sentence range under the Guidelines as 168 to 210 months.

The District Court considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and sentenced Long to 156

1
 These include New Jersey state felony convictions for aggravated assault, distribution of
marijuana, and distribution of heroin.
                                             2
months’ imprisonment followed by a three-year term of supervised release, slightly below

the Guidelines range.

       The District Court applied two sentencing enhancements at issue here. First, it

applied the Career Offender enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1(b)(2) based on Long’s

prior state convictions. Second, it applied the Stash House enhancement under U.S.S.G. §

2D1.1(b)(12) because Long “maintained a premises for the purpose of manufacturing or

distributing a controlled substance.” 2 Long appeals the District Court’s application of these

two enhancements.

                  II.    JURISDICTION AND STANDARD OF REVIEW

       The District Court had jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3231. We have jurisdiction

under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a). We review legal interpretation of the

Guidelines de novo 3 and findings of fact for clear error. 4 Applications of sentencing

enhancements are also subject to harmless error review. 5

                                      III.   ANALYSIS

       Long first challenges the District Court’s application of the two-level Stash House

enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(12).            For the enhancement to apply, the

government must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that a defendant maintained

2
  U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(12).
3
  United States v. Upshur, 67 F.4th 178, 180 (3d Cir. 2023); United States v. Nasir, 17 F.4th
459, 468 (3d Cir. 2021) (en banc).
4
  United States v. Rodriguez, 40 F.4th 117, 120 (3d Cir. 2022).
5
  Even if a district court misapplies the Guidelines, remand is inappropriate when we
“conclude[], on the record as a whole, that the error was harmless[.]” Williams v. United
States, 503 U.S. 193, 203 (1992) (citing Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(a)).
                                              3
his residence for the purpose of distributing drugs. 6 A defendant does not maintain a

residence “for the purpose” of drug-trafficking under Section 2D1.1(b)(12) where the drug

distribution activities were only an incidental or collateral use of the residence. 7 Long

argues that the drug distribution activities at his apartment were minimal and that he

principally used his car and his mother’s residence instead. The District Court, however,

found that Long’s use of his own apartment for drug-distribution was more than “incidental

or collateral.” Even if that finding was in error—and we do not suggest that it was—any

error was nonetheless harmless.

      When a sentencing enhancement is wrongly applied, that error is harmless if it “did

not affect the [] court’s selection of the sentence imposed.” 8 An important consideration

in harmless error review is whether the enhancement at issue had any bearing on the

Guideline range applicable to the petitioner. 9 Here, the Stash House enhancement did not

affect the Guidelines range because the District Court separately applied the Career

Offender enhancement. That enhancement alone resulted in a total offense level of 30,

6
  United States v. Carter, 834 F.3d 259, 261 (3d Cir. 2016).
7
  U.S.S.G. § 2d1.1, cmt. 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.”).
8
  Williams v. United States, 503 U.S. 193, 203 (1992) (citing Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(a)).
9
  See, e.g., United States v. Perez-Colon, 62 F.4th 805, 817 (3d Cir. 2023) (“Although the
District Court should not have applied the § 4B1.5(b) enhancement, we hold its error was
harmless, largely because it did not affect [petitioner’s] advisory Guidelines range.”);
accord United States v. Hollow, 208 F.3d 218, 2000 WL 307266, at *1 (8th Cir. 2000)
(unpublished table decision) (finding harmless error because “[w]ith or without the
challenged enhancement, [petitioner’s] offense level would have been [the same] because
he was a career offender”).
                                            4
even accounting for a two-level downward departure for Long’s acceptance of

responsibility. Meanwhile, the Stash House enhancement would have only raised the

applicable offense level from 24 to 26. Put simply, the Career Offender enhancement

trumped the Stash House enhancement. As a result, it had no bearing on the Guidelines

range applicable to Long. Although not dispositive, we give that fact significant weight. 10

Moreover, the District Court imposed a sentence below the Guidelines range. 11 Thus, we

conclude that the application of the Stash House enhancement, even if erroneous, did not

prejudice Long.

       Second, Long challenges the District Court’s application of the Career Offender

enhancement on the ground that his prior New Jersey state convictions for marijuana and

heroin distribution do not qualify as predicate “controlled substance offense[s]” under

U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(b). Long contends that is so because New Jersey state law defines

marijuana and heroin more broadly than does the federal Controlled Substances Act.

However, Long rightly acknowledges that this argument is foreclosed by United States v.

Lewis. 12 In Lewis, we rejected the view that a “controlled substance” refers only to those

substances controlled under federal law. Instead, we held that it refers to those regulated

by either state or federal law. 13 Other circuit courts of appeals remain divided on this issue,

10
   United States v. Perez-Colon, 62 F.4th 805, 817 (3d Cir. 2023) (finding harmless error
“largely” but not exclusively because the enhancement did not affect the advisory
Guidelines range).
11
   See id. (holding that a downward departure further supports a finding of harmless error).
12
   58 F.4th 764 (3d Cir. 2023).
13
   Id. at 769.
                                               5
but the law in our Court is clear. 14 Thus, the District Court properly applied the Career

Offender enhancement. As noted above, any error in the application of the Stash House

enhancement then becomes harmless.

                                     IV.    CONCLUSION

         For the above reasons, we will affirm the judgment of sentence of the District

Court.

14
  Three circuits hold that “controlled substance” refers to only those substances controlled
under federal law. United States v. Townsend, 897 F.3d 66, 74–75 (2d Cir. 2018); United
States v. Gomez-Alvarez, 781 F.3d 787, 793–94 (5th Cir. 2015); United States v. Bautista,
989 F.3d 698, 702 (9th Cir. 2021). Five circuits, including ours, hold that a “controlled
substance” is one regulated by either state or federal law. Lewis, 58 F.4th at 769; United
States v. Ward, 972 F.3d 364, 372–74 (4th Cir. 2020); United States v. Ruth, 966 F.3d 642,
651-54 (7th Cir. 2020); United States v. Henderson, 11 F.4th 713, 717–19 (8th Cir. 2021);
United States v. Jones, 15 F.4th 1288, 1291–96 (10th Cir. 2021).
                                              6