United States v. Daniel Contreras
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 20616
| 7th Cir. | 2017Background
- Daniel Contreras pleaded guilty in three separate federal cases for trafficking cocaine; the cases involved transactions tied to his residence.
- The government alleged eight drug transactions at Contreras’s home (seven in Mar–Apr 2013, one later that year), involving wholesale quantities, shipments to and storage at the home, and payments collected there.
- Presentence reports calculated a base offense level of 30 and recommended a +2 adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(12) for maintaining a premises for drug distribution; Contreras objected.
- Three different district judges each applied the +2 adjustment, finding the home’s use for drug distribution was more than incidental; each sentenced Contreras to 87 months (within a 87–108 mo. guideline range), concurrent across cases.
- On appeal Contreras argued (1) the courts failed to compare lawful vs. unlawful uses as required by comment 17; (2) distribution was only incidental; and (3) absence of “tools of the trade” meant the adjustment should not apply.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Contreras) | Defendant's Argument (Gov't / Courts) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §2D1.1(b)(12) applies to Contreras’s residence | Judge(s) failed to compare frequency of lawful vs. unlawful uses; drug activity was incidental | Eight wholesale transactions, shipments, storage, payments, and meetings at the home show frequent, significant illicit use | Adjustment affirmed; home was maintained for drug distribution |
| Whether courts must perform a numeric balancing of lawful vs. unlawful uses | A simple frequency comparison is required by U.S.S.G. cmt. 17 | Balancing test not required; courts assess frequency and significance of illicit use, not raw counts of lawful activity | Rejected; courts need not compare counts of lawful activity against illegal activity |
| Whether lack of "tools of the trade" defeats the adjustment | No scales/baggies/arms means premises not maintained for distribution | "Tools" are relevant but not required; other indicia suffice (quantities, shipments, payments) | Rejected; absence of tools is not dispositive |
| Whether courts’ reasoning was sufficient when one judge adopted another’s findings | Adoption without repetition insufficient | Later judges relied on prior judge’s detailed findings and on the same record | Affirmed; adoption of prior rationale was proper and adequate |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Acasio Sanchez, 810 F.3d 494 (7th Cir. 2016) (upholding premises enhancement where defendant stored and made drugs available from home)
- United States v. Evans, 826 F.3d 934 (7th Cir. 2016) (discussing §2D1.1(b)(12) and primary-use standard)
- United States v. Flores-Olague, 717 F.3d 526 (7th Cir. 2013) (courts should consider frequency and significance of illicit activity, not just lawful-vs-illegal counts)
- United States v. Miller, 698 F.3d 699 (8th Cir. 2012) (Congress intended to deter drug manufacture/distribution in family homes and similar premises)
- United States v. Edwin Sanchez, 710 F.3d 724 (7th Cir. 2013) (identifying factors—storage, drop-off, pick-up, settlement of payments—relevant to premises enhancement)
- United States v. Winfield, 846 F.3d 241 (7th Cir. 2017) (upholding enhancement based on four transactions in twelve weeks)