United States v. Samuel Steel, III, 609 F. App'x 851

Samuel Steel pleaded guilty to one count of distributing heroin; other counts were dismissed under a plea agreement.
Law enforcement conducted 13 controlled buys in 2011; a majority occurred at 1901 Douglas Street, Steel’s residence. A search of that residence recovered a small amount of suspected heroin, a firearm (claimed by his wife), and ammunition.
The PSR attributed 1–3 kg of heroin to Steel (base offense level 32 under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c)(4)), recommended a two-level § 2D1.1(b)(12) enhancement for maintaining premises for drug distribution, and recommended a three-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility.
The PSR and court classified Steel as a Career Offender under § 4B1.1, placing him in Criminal History Category VI; Steel did not contest the career-offender designation.
The district court applied the two-level premises enhancement, calculated a guidelines range of 188–235 months, and sentenced Steel to 188 months. The court stated it would have imposed the same 188-month sentence even if it had rejected the enhancement, because 188 months was the top of the career-offender range.
On appeal Steel argued the § 2D1.1(b)(12) enhancement was improperly applied and not harmless because, without it, he would be eligible for a § 3582(c)(2) reduction under Amendment 782 (which lowered the drug-quantity table).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Steel)	Defendant's Argument (Gov’t)	Held
Whether the two-level § 2D1.1(b)(12) premises enhancement was properly applied	Enhancement improper because Douglas St. was primarily a family residence; only small in-residence sales and no other distribution evidence in the house	Enhancement supported by repeated controlled buys at the address and instructions to CI to come to the residence	Court assumed possible error but held any error harmless because the district court would have imposed same 188-month sentence on alternative (career-offender) grounds
Whether any error was non-harmless because without the enhancement Steel would be eligible for a § 3582(c)(2) reduction under Amendment 782	Without the enhancement, the sentence would have been based on § 2D1.1 and thus eligible for later reduction under Amendment 782	Career-offender guideline (§ 4B1.1) controls the applicable guideline range after amendment; Amendment 782 would not lower the applicable range because career-offender range remains higher	Held not eligible: Amendment 782 would not lower the applicable guideline range due to operation of § 4B1.1, so any error was harmless

United States v. Jeross, 521 F.3d 562 (6th Cir.) (harmless-error standard for sentencing)
United States v. Gillis, 592 F.3d 696 (6th Cir.) (appellate harmless-error review requires certainty sentence would be same)
United States v. McCarty, 628 F.3d 284 (6th Cir.) (sentencing error harmless where district court said sentence would be the same)
United States v. Obi, 542 F.3d 148 (6th Cir.) (same)
United States v. Hameed, 614 F.3d 259 (6th Cir.) (determine what the district court actually relied on to decide whether a sentence was "based on" a guideline)
United States v. Joiner, 727 F.3d 601 (6th Cir.) (definition of "applicable guideline range" under § 1B1.10)
United States v. Stevenson, 749 F.3d 667 (7th Cir.) (career-offender guideline can block a § 3582(c)(2) reduction)
United States v. Waters, 648 F.3d 1114 (9th Cir.) (same)
United States v. Johnson, 737 F.3d 444 (6th Cir.) (elements for § 2D1.1(b)(12) premises enhancement)