United States v. Wesley

In United States v. Wesley, 123 F.4th 423 (5th Cir. 2024), the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision to apply a two-level sentencing enhancement because the defendant had maintained a premises for the purpose of distributing a controlled substance. See USSG § 2D1.1(b)(12).

Under USSG § 2D1.1(b)(12), a defendant’s Sentencing Guidelines are enhanced by two levels if “the defendant maintained a premises for the purpose of manufacturing or distributing a controlled substance.” Manufacturing or distributing “need not be the sole purpose for which the premises were maintained,” but they must be “one of the defendant’s primary or principal uses for the premises, rather than one of the defendant’s incidental or collateral uses for the premises.” § 2D1.1 cmt. n.17.

On appeal, Wesley argued that the enhancement should not apply because the evidence failed to show that he possessed or controlled the premises in question. Both parties agreed that Wesley had no possessory interest in the property, so the key question was whether he “maintained” the premises. The Fifth Circuit held that he did because “the undisputed facts establish[ed] that Wesley sold drugs from the residence multiple times, used the residence as a stash house, and had a key to the residence.”

In reaching that conclusion, the court declined to adopt Wesley’s proposed interpretation of the Guideline—he had argued that to receive the enhancement, a defendant must have exercised supervisory control concerning access to the premises. Instead, the Fifth Circuit’s cases “focus instead on access and control over the premises, particularly unrestricted and exclusive access.”