85 F.4th 386
6th Cir.2023Background
- Maurice Taylor pleaded guilty to two federal drug offenses (conspiracy to distribute ≥5 kg cocaine and ≥400 g fentanyl; possession with intent to distribute ≥500 g cocaine) and was sentenced to 385 months.
- The PSR recommended three Guidelines enhancements: (1) §2D1.1(b)(12) for maintaining a drug premises; (2) §3B1.1(a) for an organizer/leader role; and (3) §2D1.1(b)(16)(A) for using fear/friendship/affection to involve another.
- Key factual basis: Taylor stored kilograms of fentanyl in Rae’Shawna Campbell’s closet; law enforcement observed Taylor leaving her home with cocaine; a duffel with ~8 kg fentanyl was seized from her closet.
- Campbell testified Taylor coerced her (threats, statements about others watching), instructed her to leave the house unlocked ~10–15 times, and used her garage/house to unload and pick up drugs; she did not receive compensation and had limited knowledge of the enterprise.
- Co-conspirator Shad Wilson testified Taylor directed drug and cash transactions (e.g., sent Wilson to Campbell’s house to pick up/distribute fentanyl), supporting a leadership role.
- The district court credited witness testimony, applied all three enhancements, and calculated Guidelines range of 324–405 months before imposing 385 months; Taylor appealed only the three enhancements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Gov't/Taylor) | Defendant's Argument (Taylor) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Drug-premises enhancement (§2D1.1(b)(12)) | Gov't: Taylor exerted de facto control over Campbell’s home via threats and directed repeated use to store/distribute kg quantities. | Taylor: He had no possessory or legal interest in the house and thus did not "maintain" the premises. | Affirmed — court credited Campbell and found de facto control/maintenance based on coercion, repeated access, and storage of distribution quantities. |
| Aggravating-role enhancement (§3B1.1(a)) | Gov't: Taylor directed participants, recruited/oversee operations (e.g., instructed Wilson), qualifying as a leader of one or more participants. | Taylor: He was not the conspiracy’s architect or overall leader. | Affirmed — sufficient evidence he exercised control/decision-making over other participants; leadership need only extend to one or more participants. |
| Special-offense characteristic (§2D1.1(b)(16)(A)) | Gov't: Taylor used fear, friendship, and affection to involve Campbell; she received little/no compensation and had minimal knowledge of the enterprise. | Taylor: No specific overt threats/force shown; Campbell knew more than "minimal" about the operation. | Affirmed — court credited Campbell’s testimony of coercion, found minimal knowledge and no compensation, so enhancement applies. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Johnson, 737 F.3d 444 (6th Cir. 2013) (elements for applying the drug-premises enhancement under §2D1.1)
- United States v. Hernandez, [citation="721 F. App'x 479"] (6th Cir. 2018) (de facto control can satisfy "maintained" even without legal ownership)
- United States v. Russell, 595 F.3d 633 (6th Cir. 2010) (factors evidencing maintenance include control, duration, supervising, and continuity)
- United States v. Washington, 715 F.3d 975 (6th Cir. 2013) (leader enhancement requires control of one or more other participants)
- United States v. Abdalla, 972 F.3d 838 (6th Cir. 2020) (appellate deference to district court credibility findings)
- United States v. Bell, 766 F.3d 634 (6th Cir. 2014) (discussing review standards for mixed questions of law and fact)