83 F.4th 1039
6th Cir.2023Background
- Michael Terry pleaded guilty to four counts of distributing fentanyl; sentenced to 57 months (top of Guidelines range).
- District court applied a two-level U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(12) "drug house" enhancement, raising offense level from 19 to 21 and Guidelines range from 37–46 to 46–57 months.
- PSR and the district court relied on multiple controlled buys and other transactions at Terry’s Smith Street residence over ~5 months (six or seven incidents across ~Jan–May 2021), plus co-conspirator Edward Washington’s use of the house for deals.
- Terry conceded the residence was his and that some sales occurred there but noted no drugs, paraphernalia, cash, or manufacturing at the house and argued Washington sometimes dealt there without Terry’s knowledge.
- The court found the facts sufficient and held distribution need only be a primary (not sole) use of the premises; Terry appealed only the applicability of the two-level enhancement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 2D1.1(b)(12) enhancement applies—did Terry maintain his residence for the purpose of distributing controlled substances? | Government: Repeated controlled buys and multiple co-conspirator deals at Terry’s home show distribution was one of the residence’s primary uses; co-conspirator conduct may be attributed. | Terry: Only a few small transactions over ~1 year; no drugs, tools, cash, or manufacturing at the home—distribution was incidental/collateral, not a primary use. | Affirmed: Court found no clear factual error and concluded the guideline covers repeated small-scale distribution; enhancement properly applied. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Tolbert, 668 F.3d 798 (6th Cir. 2012) (standard for appellate review of sentencing factual findings)
- United States v. Parrish, 915 F.3d 1043 (6th Cir. 2019) (distinguishing factual and legal review in sentencing matters)
- Buford v. United States, 532 U.S. 59 (2001) (deferential review appropriate for detailed sentencing interpretations)
- United States v. Johnson, 737 F.3d 444 (6th Cir. 2013) (home may merit enhancement where it plays a significant role in trafficking)
- United States v. Bell, 766 F.3d 634 (6th Cir. 2014) (drug storage and on‑site transactions generally suffice for enhancement)
- United States v. Sweet, 630 F.3d 477 (6th Cir. 2011) (distinguishing factual and legal components of enhancements)
- United States v. Gardner, 32 F.4th 504 (6th Cir. 2022) (affirming enhancement where residence used for receiving, weighing, distributing, and cooking)
- United States v. Miller, 698 F.3d 699 (8th Cir. 2012) (affirming enhancement where multiple controlled buys and active participation at home supported finding)
- United States v. Murphy, 901 F.3d 1185 (10th Cir. 2018) (frequency and substantiality both relevant to finding primary use)
- United States v. Contreras, 874 F.3d 280 (7th Cir. 2017) (consider both frequency and significance—quantities, customer interactions, tools of trade)
- United States v. Jones, 778 F.3d 375 (1st Cir. 2015) (purpose inferred from totality: quantities and presence of trafficking accoutrements)
- United States v. Galicia, 983 F.3d 842 (5th Cir. 2020) (long-term residential character does not shield against enhancement when premises are used continuously for storage/distribution)