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 district court sentenced him to 420 months in prison.
In calculating the advisory Guidelines range, the district court applied a two-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(12) for maintaining a premises to manufacture or distribute controlled substances. Murguia appealed, arguing that the presentence investigation report did not establish that his reported home was the relevant premises, did not identify or describe the stash house in detail, and did not report that officers seized drugs there.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth Circuit affirmed. Because Murguia had not objected to the enhancement in the district court, the panel reviewed only for plain error. The district court had adopted the PSR, which stated that Murguia operated a stash house with a co-conspirator and met one of his drug distributors there. Murguia had not objected to those factual statements or to the premises being characterized as a stash house for controlled substances.
The panel held that those unchallenged findings adequately supported the enhancement. Whether Murguia’s reported home address could be confirmed was immaterial because the enhancement rested on the stash house, not his residence. The Guidelines also did not require the PSR to specify the stash house’s address or type of residence, and the absence of a reported drug seizure there did not establish plain error.
Key Takeaways
- An unpreserved challenge to the application of a sentencing enhancement is reviewed only for plain error.
- A district court may rely on unobjected-to PSR findings that the defendant operated a drug stash house and met a distributor there.
- Section 2D1.1(b)(12) does not require the PSR to identify the premises as the defendant’s home or provide a detailed description of the property.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores the importance of making specific factual and Guidelines objections at sentencing. When a defendant does not dispute a PSR’s description of premises as a jointly operated drug stash house, those facts may support the drug-premises enhancement and leave the defendant with the more demanding plain-error standard on appeal.