Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Alberto Murguia pleaded guilty to conspiring to possess with intent to distribute at least 500 grams of methamphetamine and at least five kilograms of cocaine. The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas sentenced him to 420 months in prison.
Murguia appealed the district court’s application of a two-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(12) for maintaining premises to manufacture or distribute controlled substances. He argued that the probation officer could not confirm his home address, the presentence investigation report did not provide an address or description for the identified stash house, and law enforcement did not seize controlled substances from that location. Because Murguia had not objected to the enhancement in the district court, the Fifth Circuit reviewed only for plain error.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court did not plainly err in applying the premises enhancement. The unchallenged presentence report stated that Murguia operated a stash house with a co-conspirator and met one of his drug distributors there. The district court adopted those findings without objection.
The court rejected Murguia’s reliance on uncertainty about his home address because the enhancement rested on the stash house, not his residence. It also concluded that the report did not need to identify the stash house’s address, describe it, or specify what type of residence it was. The district court’s adoption of the report was sufficient because its factual findings and conclusions adequately supported the enhancement.
Key Takeaways
- An unpreserved challenge to the application of a sentencing-guidelines enhancement is reviewed for plain error.
- Unobjected-to findings that a defendant operated a stash house and met a drug distributor there can support the U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(12) premises enhancement.
- The premises need not be the defendant’s residence, and the presentence report need not provide its address or describe its physical type.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the importance of making specific objections to presentence-report findings and guidelines enhancements in the district court. When a defendant does not object, the sentencing court may rely on the report’s factual statements, and appellate review is limited to the demanding plain-error standard.
It also confirms that the Fifth Circuit does not require detailed physical or address information about a stash house when undisputed presentence-report findings otherwise establish that the defendant operated the premises for drug-distribution activity.