United States v. Kenneth Carter
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 15428
3rd Cir.2016Background
- Carter ran a Pennsylvania heroin/Opana distribution ring from Detroit, directing lieutenants (Macon, Cook) and other associates (Earheart) to operate in Pennsylvania.
- Two residences (Stoney Run and Bedford Street) were rented for drug operations: Macon lived and managed finances at Stoney Run; Cook processed heroin at Bedford Street and sent product to Stoney Run.
- Earheart located and rented Stoney Run at Carter’s direction; Macon paid rent and expenses with organization funds under Carter’s control and accounting requirements.
- Law enforcement recovered drugs and paraphernalia at both homes; Carter pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute 1 kg+ of heroin and reserved the right to appeal application of U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(12) (the two‑level “stash house” enhancement).
- At sentencing the district court found Carter controlled activities and finances related to the properties and applied the two‑level enhancement; Carter appealed only the enhancement’s application.
- The Third Circuit affirmed, concluding that Carter’s direction, approval, financial control, and supervision showed he “maintained” the premises for drug manufacturing/distribution.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Carter) | Defendant's Argument (Government) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Carter “maintained” premises under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(12) | Carter lacked possessory interest and did not physically occupy or personally pay for the properties, so he did not “maintain” them | Carter exercised control: approved rentals, directed payments, supervised operations, and controlled funds and personnel | Enhancement applies; Carter maintained the stash houses |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Jones, 778 F.3d 375 (1st Cir.) (rejects requirement of ownership or leasehold to establish maintenance)
- United States v. Johnson, 737 F.3d 444 (6th Cir.) (sets out elements for §2D1.1(b)(12) application)
- United States v. Flores-Olague, 717 F.3d 526 (7th Cir.) (enhancement flexible; ownership not dispositive)
- United States v. Morgan, 117 F.3d 849 (5th Cir.) (control/direction of people/activities supports maintenance finding)
- United States v. Clavis, 956 F.2d 1079 (11th Cir.) (lists factors—control, acquisition, renting, supervision, continuity—relevant to §856/maintenance analysis)