Background
Torri McLaurin pleaded guilty without a plea agreement to conspiring to distribute and possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine, fentanyl, and cocaine, and to a substantive possession-with-intent-to-distribute count. McLaurin belonged to Big Tawk Entertainment, whose members distributed drugs from several St. Petersburg residences and filmed music videos at some of those locations. Law enforcement made a controlled purchase from McLaurin at the 50th Avenue residence and recovered drugs there and at other locations connected to the group.
The presentence investigation report attributed to McLaurin drugs recovered during a traffic stop and searches of residences controlled by the conspiracy. It also recommended a two-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(12) for maintaining premises for drug manufacture or distribution. The district court overruled McLaurin’s objections, calculated a Guidelines range of 262 to 327 months, and imposed a below-Guidelines sentence of 235 months’ imprisonment.
The Court’s Holding
The Eleventh Circuit affirmed. It held that the district court did not clearly err by attributing the conspiracy’s drug quantities to McLaurin. McLaurin did not object to the presentence report’s factual statements that he conspired with other group members to distribute the drugs from the group’s residences and was responsible for the specified quantities. His absence from other locations did not establish that the activity there fell outside the jointly undertaken criminal activity or was unforeseeable.
The court also held that § 2D1.1(b)(12) may be applied based on a co-conspirator’s relevant conduct. Because the provision contains no limitation displacing § 1B1.3(a)(1)(B)’s general relevant-conduct rule, a co-conspirator’s maintenance of drug premises can support the enhancement when it was within the jointly undertaken criminal activity, furthered that activity, and was reasonably foreseeable. The panel found those requirements satisfied because McLaurin sold drugs from one residence, participated in a music video there promoting the operation, and joined a conspiracy whose purpose was distributing the three drugs. The majority therefore did not decide whether McLaurin’s own conduct independently justified the enhancement.
Judge Rosenbaum concurred in affirming the drug-quantity ruling but dissented from the premises-enhancement holding. She would have required consideration of McLaurin’s own relationship to the premises and remanded for further factual findings on whether his conduct supported the enhancement.
Key Takeaways
- Undisputed factual allegations in a presentence report may establish the scope of jointly undertaken criminal activity and the drug quantities attributable to a defendant.
- An arrest or resulting unavailability does not itself withdraw a defendant from a conspiracy; withdrawal requires steps inconsistent with the conspiracy that are communicated in a manner reasonably calculated to reach co-conspirators, or disclosure of the illegal activity to law enforcement.
- In the Eleventh Circuit, the § 2D1.1(b)(12) premises enhancement may rest on a co-conspirator’s conduct when the requirements of § 1B1.3(a)(1)(B) are satisfied.
Why It Matters
The published decision establishes that a drug defendant need not personally own, rent, or maintain a stash house for § 2D1.1(b)(12) to apply. Sentencing courts in the Eleventh Circuit may rely on a co-conspirator’s maintenance of drug premises if that conduct qualifies as relevant conduct under the Guidelines.
The decision also underscores the consequences of leaving factual assertions in a presentence report unchallenged. Even when a defendant disputes the resulting Guidelines calculation, admitted or undisputed facts may supply the evidentiary basis for attributing co-conspirators’ conduct.