United States v. DeJesus Ortiz, 807 F. Supp. 2d 746

Sentencing hearing at which court overruled government's objection to a 2-level upgrade under § 2D1.1(b)(12).
Defendant Ortiz’s drug activity involved a planned 82-kilogram marijuana shipment from Denver to Rockford, monitored by wire intercepts from Oct 2010.
Conversations with two individuals (A and B) indicated preparations to receive and distribute marijuana, including house-related arrangements.
House on Preston Avenue in Rockford was controlled by Ortiz, not owned or leased by him, and was in a dilapidated condition.
The house was used by Ortiz solely for marijuana distribution, with limited evidence of any other lawful use; this is the alleged basis for the enhancement.
On Oct 26, 2010, Ortiz met with others at the Preston House, was later stopped by police, leading to the charge that triggered the guideline consideration.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Ortiz maintained a premises for distribution under § 2D1.1(b)(12).	Ortiz maintained the house and controlled access for drug activity.	Single use does not constitute maintaining a drug premises.	No; the enhancement does not apply.
How to apply Application Note 28 to § 2D1.1(b)(12).	Consider possessory interest and control plus primary use.	Premises must be used for distribution in a sustained way.	Not satisfied here; single use not enough.
Whether Ortiz’s lack of ownership negates the enhancement.	Control and primary use indicate maintenance.	Ownership is lacking; maintenance not shown.	Enhancement rejected for lack of maintenance.

United States v. Villegas, 655 F.3d 662 (7th Cir. 2011) (guidelines interpretation; preponderance standard in applying § 2D1.1(b)(12))
United States v. Acosta, 534 F.3d 574 (7th Cir. 2008) (definition of 'maintains' a drug house; control over premises and sustained use)