9 F.4th 43
1st Cir.2021Background:
- Hannah Patch pleaded guilty to maintaining a drug-involved premises under 21 U.S.C. § 856(a)(2) for allowing her boyfriend's drug ring to use her Springvale, Maine apartment.
- PSI reported Patch accompanied her boyfriend on several resupply trips from Maine to Lawrence, Massachusetts; she admitted knowledge of drugs being stored, processed, and distributed from her apartment.
- District court declined to apply the USSG §2D1.8(a)(2) offense-level cap (which limits the base offense level where defendant only allowed use of premises), finding Patch participated beyond merely providing the apartment.
- District court set total offense level at 23, granted a 2-level downward variance for youthful involvement, producing an adjusted level of 21 and a GSR of 37–46 months; sentenced Patch to 34 months.
- Patch appealed, arguing (1) the §2D1.8(a)(2) cap should have applied because she merely allowed use of the premises, and (2) a §2D1.1(b)(12) enhancement was wrongly applied; the Second issue was preserved only by waiver arguments.
- The First Circuit vacated and remanded for resentencing, holding the record lacked sufficient evidence that Patch participated in the drug operation beyond mere presence and providing the premises, and the government (which conceded it bore the burden) failed to prove participation by a preponderance.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Patch) | Defendant's Argument (Government) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether USSG §2D1.8(a)(2) cap applies (i.e., did Patch participate beyond allowing premises?) | Patch: She only allowed use of her apartment; any trips were merely rides as a passenger. | Government: Her accompanying resupply trips and awareness show participation beyond mere provision of premises. | Held: Cap applies; record shows only presence and knowledge, not affirmative participation; government failed to prove otherwise. |
| Whether USSG §2D1.1(b)(12) enhancement applies (apparent primary use of premises) | Patch: Enhancement improper because drug activity was not a primary/principal use by her. | Government: Applied enhancement as ongoing drug activity used the premises. | Held: Court did not reach this issue as moot given reversal on the §2D1.8(a)(2) issue. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Sepulveda, 15 F.3d 1161 (1st Cir. 1994) (presence at drug sale plus circumstances can support complicity inference)
- United States v. Ortiz, 966 F.2d 707 (1st Cir. 1992) (passenger conversation during transaction supports inference of participation)
- Dir., Off. of Workers' Comp. Programs v. Greenwich Collieries, 512 U.S. 267 (1994) (party bearing burden loses if evidence is evenly balanced)
- United States v. Hyson, 721 F.2d 856 (1st Cir. 1983) (reversal where evidence showed only mere presence)
- United States v. Hunt, 487 F.3d 347 (6th Cir. 2007) (mere presence is insufficient to show participation)
- Molina-Martinez v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1338 (2016) (properly calculated Guidelines range is the starting point; sentencing errors may require resentencing)
- In re Sealed Case, 552 F.3d 841 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (assigning burden to government in similar guideline-cap context)
- United States v. Leasure, 319 F.3d 1092 (9th Cir. 2003) (discussing burden-of-proof allocation on whether cap applies)