United States v. Curtis Bell, Jr.
766 F.3d 634
| 6th Cir. | 2014Background
- Curtis Bell was arrested in Oct 2012 with 58 g of crack, several thousand dollars, and marijuana in his truck; he later pleaded guilty to federal drug and felon-in-possession charges.
- While jailed, Bell called his ex-wife Katrina instructing her to retrieve items from his home and gave the safe combination; police intercepted the call.
- Katrina was found carrying a laundry basket containing 29 small bags of cocaine (over 800 g), two unregistered firearms, and $3,990; police also seized from Bell’s home three police scanners, a digital scale, drug-packaging materials, and a safe.
- Katrina reported that Bell had cooked crack in the home’s kitchen during the period they lived together and that the kitchen would be "muggy" afterwards; Bell had no steady employment from Jan 2011 onward.
- At sentencing the district court applied a 2-level U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(12) enhancement for maintaining a premises for manufacturing/distributing drugs and imposed a 144-month sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Bell "maintained a premises for the purpose of manufacturing or distributing" a controlled substance (U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(12)) | Government: circumstantial evidence (scales, packaging, scanners, safe with cash, Katrina’s statement, drugs/guns in parked truck) shows the home was used to cook and distribute crack | Bell: items have legitimate uses; Katrina’s account lacks detail on timing/location/frequency; drugs/guns were in the truck/garage, not inside the living areas; residence primary purpose was lawful living | Court affirmed enhancement: cumulative circumstantial evidence established that the home played a significant part in drug production/distribution; residence can have multiple primary purposes including drug activity |
| Standard of review for guideline enhancements | Government: deference to district court’s findings (clear error) | Bell: urged more searching review (de novo) | Court noted circuit uncertainty but held result same under either standard, so affirmation stands |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Johnson, 737 F.3d 444 (6th Cir. 2013) (defines elements and tests for § 2D1.1(b)(12) enhancement)
- United States v. Jackson-Randolph, 282 F.3d 369 (6th Cir. 2002) (applied clear-error review to sentencing factfinding)
- United States v. Sweet, 630 F.3d 477 (6th Cir. 2011) (applied de novo review in similar context)
- United States v. $67,220, 957 F.2d 280 (6th Cir. 1992) (large sums of cash in residence probative of drug activity)
- United States v. Sanchez, 710 F.3d 724 (7th Cir. 2013) (affirmed § 2D1.1(b)(12) where drugs observed at premises)
- United States v. Miller, 698 F.3d 699 (8th Cir. 2012) (residence may be maintained for drug purposes)
- United States v. Shetler, 665 F.3d 1150 (9th Cir. 2011) (applied statutory prohibition to residences)
- United States v. Russell, 595 F.3d 633 (6th Cir. 2010) (statute and precedent applying to residential drug production)