114 F.4th 847
7th Cir.2024Background
- Travis Montgomery pleaded guilty to distributing methamphetamine and was convicted in the Southern District of Indiana.
- During the investigation, law enforcement found that Montgomery used a storage unit (leased by his sister) to store methamphetamine, other drugs, cash, and drug trafficking paraphernalia.
- Montgomery's sentencing included a two-level enhancement for maintaining a premises for drug distribution under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(12).
- The district court found the enhancement applied, raising his guideline range, but sentenced him at the lower end due to pending changes in sentencing guidelines.
- Montgomery appealed, arguing the enhancement was improperly applied to a storage unit used over a relatively brief period and with unclear possessory/control factors.
- The Seventh Circuit vacated the sentence and remanded for further factual findings, as the record did not clearly establish that the primary use of the storage unit was for drug distribution during the relevant period.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does a storage unit qualify as a "premises" under § 2D1.1(b)(12)? | Storage units are “rooms/enclosures” under the guideline. | Enhancement has mainly been applied to houses/homes, not storage units. | Yes, storage unit is a covered premises. |
| Did Montgomery "maintain" the premises as required by the guideline? | He had access and could use the unit any time. | He neither leased nor controlled exclusive access, and the unit was in use for only a short period. | Court uncertain; record unclear. |
| Was the primary purpose of the premises drug distribution? | Drugs, cash, paraphernalia, and only a few non-drug items found; multiple accesses to the unit. | Only three confirmed drug-related uses, not clear primary or sustained use for drugs. | Record insufficient; remand required. |
| Was the two-level enhancement supported by the evidence? | Frequency and nature of use supported enhancement. | Three instances were inadequate for enhancement and evidence about other uses was lacking. | Not on current record; more factfinding. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Ford, 22 F.4th 687 (7th Cir. 2022) (discussing boundaries of the § 2D1.1(b)(12) enhancement, especially in non-residential settings)
- United States v. Zamudio, 18 F.4th 557 (7th Cir. 2021) (premises enhancement application for sustained drug storage operation)
- United States v. Acosta, 534 F.3d 574 (7th Cir. 2008) (requires premises used for drug activities for a "sustained period")
- United States v. Flores-Olague, 717 F.3d 526 (7th Cir. 2013) (enhancement applies where premises are used daily for drug trafficking)
- United States v. Griffin, 76 F.4th 724 (7th Cir. 2023) (preponderance standard at sentencing for factual findings)