United States v. Acasio Sanchez
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 545
| 7th Cir. | 2016Background
- Sanchez, a 70-year-old renter with serious health issues, agreed to store large drug shipments in his home for about a year and was paid ~$18,000; at least 30 kg of heroin/cocaine passed through his residence.
- Drugs were kept locked in a closet on the back porch; Sanchez and his girlfriend had keys; Sanchez met coconspirators in his garage to hand off drugs.
- Sanchez pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute heroin and cocaine; other charges were dismissed under a plea agreement that left the §2D1.1(b)(12) enhancement contested.
- Probation recommended a two-level enhancement for maintaining a premises for drug distribution, yielding a guidelines range of 135–168 months; Sanchez qualified for safety-valve (no mandatory minimum).
- The district court applied the two-level enhancement, finding the home was used as a stash house on a constant basis for substantial money, but imposed a 40-month below-guidelines sentence based on Sanchez’s age and poor health.
- On appeal, Sanchez argued the enhancement was improper because his role was limited to storage (no scales, cash, records, sales, or exclusive control); the government defended application of the enhancement. The Seventh Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(12) applies for maintaining premises used for drug distribution | Sanchez: mere storage without other indicia (sales, records, weapons, exclusive control) means distribution was not a primary use | Gov: consistent deliveries, concealment, pick-ups, payment, and Sanchez’s possessory interest made storage a primary use | Enhancement applies — large deliveries, payment, and Sanchez’s control/support made the residence a stash house; court affirmed |
| If erroneous, whether application was harmless given sentencing | Sanchez: even if enhancement applied incorrectly, it affected guidelines and thus sentencing | Gov: district court stated it would impose same below-guidelines sentence regardless | Harmless — district court explicitly explained it would have imposed the same 40-month sentence due to age/health; affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Johnson, 737 F.3d 444 (6th Cir.) (use of premises integral to conspiracy can support enhancement)
- United States v. Flores-Olague, 717 F.3d 526 (7th Cir.) (storage can be an indicium of principal use of premises)
- United States v. Miller, 698 F.3d 699 (8th Cir.) (multiple factors may show drug distribution is a primary use)
- United States v. Bell, 766 F.3d 634 (6th Cir.) (porch/storage area can be part of residence for enhancement purposes)
- United States v. Jones, 778 F.3d 375 (1st Cir.) (enhancement does not require exclusive control of storage area)
- United States v. Rabiu, 721 F.3d 467 (7th Cir.) (district court’s parallel sentencing rationale can render guideline error harmless)
- United States v. Foster, 701 F.3d 1142 (7th Cir.) (harmless-error review where district court would have imposed same sentence)
- United States v. Abbas, 560 F.3d 660 (7th Cir.) (district court must give a detailed explanation for a parallel result to be considered valid)
- United States v. Hill, 645 F.3d 900 (7th Cir.) (discusses adequacy of district court explanation when affirming despite guideline error)