Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Leotis Cornelius McMahon was convicted of possession with intent to distribute at least 50 grams of methamphetamine and possession of a firearm by a felon. The district court sentenced him to 400 months in prison, a sentence within the advisory U.S. Sentencing Guidelines range.
On appeal, McMahon challenged his sentence, but not his conviction. He specifically contested the district court’s application of a two-level sentencing enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(12) for maintaining a premises for the purpose of manufacturing or distributing a controlled substance. McMahon argued that the government failed to prove that drug-related activity was a “primary or principal use” of his residence, as required by the guideline.
The Court’s Holding
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed McMahon’s sentence. The court first determined that because McMahon had not clearly raised this specific argument in the district court, it would review the enhancement only for “plain error.” This is a more difficult standard for an appellant to meet than the typical de novo review.
Applying that standard, the court found no clear or obvious error. It held that a district court is permitted to draw reasonable inferences from the facts to decide if an enhancement applies. Citing its own precedent, the court noted there is a “low bar” for establishing that a primary use of a property was drug manufacturing or distribution. Based on the undisputed facts in McMahon’s presentence report, the court concluded it was a reasonable inference that one of the primary uses of his residence was to store, manufacture, and prepare controlled substances for sale.
Key Takeaways
- The Fifth Circuit has established a “low bar” for satisfying the requirement that a premises be used for the “primary purpose” of drug manufacturing or distribution to apply the sentencing enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(12).
- Defense counsel must raise specific and clear objections during sentencing to preserve those issues for a full de novo review on appeal; otherwise, a more deferential “plain error” standard will apply.
- In determining whether a sentencing enhancement applies, courts are permitted to draw reasonable inferences from the undisputed facts contained in the presentence report.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces the significant latitude that district courts in the Fifth Circuit have when applying the sentencing enhancement for maintaining a drug premises. The court’s explicit reference to a “low bar” signals that so long as the evidence supports a reasonable inference that drug distribution was one of the primary uses of a location—not necessarily the sole use—the enhancement will likely be upheld. The ruling also serves as a stark reminder to defense attorneys about the procedural necessity of making specific objections at sentencing to avoid the stringent plain-error standard on appeal, which is very difficult to overcome.