United States v. Nicole Clark
665 F. App'x 298
| 4th Cir. | 2016Background
- Nicole Felicia Clark was tried pro se and convicted by a jury on a four‑count superseding indictment charging conspiracy and possession with intent to distribute cocaine and heroin.
- At sentencing the district court applied a two‑level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(12) for maintaining a drug‑related premises (an apartment on East Ocean View Avenue in Norfolk, VA).
- The enhancement raised Clark’s advisory Guideline range from 188–235 months to 235–293 months; the court imposed concurrent 240‑month terms on each count.
- Clark did not object to the § 2D1.1(b)(12) enhancement in district court and therefore appealed under the plain‑error standard.
- Testimony at trial and sentencing showed Clark delivered multi‑kilogram quantities of cocaine and heroin to the Ocean View apartment multiple times, stayed overnight there with full access (including the back room where drugs and money were stored), participated in ‘‘stretching’’ cocaine, and acknowledged knowledge of firearms and kilogram quantities at the premises.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the § 2D1.1(b)(12) two‑level enhancement for maintaining a drug‑related premises was supported | Government: enhancement proper because the apartment functioned as a storage/distribution hub used by Clark and coconspirators | Clark: she merely delivered drugs and stayed overnight; she lacked possessory interest or control and did not maintain the premises for drug activity | Affirmed: under plain‑error review, evidence supported that Clark "maintained" and controlled the premises for drug distribution |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Strieper, 666 F.3d 288 (4th Cir.) (standard: de novo guideline application, factual findings for clear error)
- United States v. Hargrove, 625 F.3d 170 (4th Cir.) (failure to object in district court triggers plain‑error review on appeal)
- United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (1993) (elements and framework for plain‑error review)
- United States v. Carthorne, 726 F.3d 503 (4th Cir.) (plain‑error requires the error be "clear" under settled law)
- United States v. Marcus, 560 U.S. 258 (2010) (clarifies when an error is "plain")
- United States v. Acosta, 534 F.3d 574 (7th Cir.) (explaining maintenance/control of a premises in drug‑house context)