United States v. Tripplet

112 F.4th 428

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Condarius Deshun TRIPPLET, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 23-1676

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit

Decided and Filed: August 12, 2024

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan at Grand Rapids. No. 1:22-cr-00161-1—Robert J. Jonker, District Judge.

ON BRIEF: Paul L. Nelson, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Grand Rapids, Michigan, for Appellant. John J. Schoettle, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, Grand Rapids, Michigan, for Appellee.

Before: MOORE, MURPHY, and BLOOMEKATZ, Circuit Judges.

BLOOMEKATZ, J., delivered the opinion of the court in which MOORE, J., joined in full. MURPHY, J. (pp. 434-36), delivered a separate opinion concurring in part and in the judgment.

OPINION

BLOOMEKATZ, Circuit Judge.

In 2022, Condarius Tripplet pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute controlled substances. The district court sentenced Tripplet to 188 months' imprisonment. He now appeals, contesting the court's application of a drug-premises enhancement. This enhancement adds two levels to the base offense level when a defendant maintains "a premises (i.e., a building, room, or enclosure) for the purpose of manufacturing or distributing" drugs. U.S. Sent'g Comm'n Guidelines Manual (U.S.S.G.) § 2D1.1(b)(12). Tripplet acknowledges he maintained an apartment but disputes that its primary use was for drug distribution, noting that he lived there with his then-girlfriend and her two children. However, our precedent clarifies that the defendant need not maintain the premises only for drug operations; if drug manufacture or distribution is one of the primary or principal uses of the residence, the enhancement may apply. Given the undisputed findings that Tripplet had a significant quantity of various illegal drugs, thousands of dollars in cash, a firearm, and drug manufacturing tools in the residence, and that he regularly distributed drugs to customers from this residence, we affirm the district court's decision to apply the enhancement.

BACKGROUND

In July 2021, an undercover officer conducting a narcotics investigation purchased drugs from a dealer connected to Condarius Tripplet. Following the sale, the dealer traveled to an apartment complex in Benton Harbor, Michigan, and disappeared inside. The dealer reemerged with a quantity of fentanyl he then delivered to the undercover officer. Over a year later, on October 6, 2022, case agents organized a second transaction. A confidential informant placed an order with a different dealer who traveled to the same apartment building. Investigators tracked the dealer as he ducked into one of the apartments, then emerged to hand methamphetamine to the confidential informant. Officers discovered the apartment was leased to Tripplet's girlfriend, Andrea Singleton, who appeared to live there with Tripplet.

A month later, officers executed two more controlled buys. The third buy took place on November 2, 2022, and the fourth occurred on November 8, 2022. Like the first two deals, both the third and fourth involved a confidential informant buying the drugs from an intermediary who would travel to Tripplet's apartment and reemerge to hand the drugs to the confidential informant. On the third buy, officers observed Tripplet exit his apartment and hand drugs to the intermediary. After the fourth buy, officers obtained and executed a search warrant at Tripplet's apartment.

During their search, officers recovered substantial quantities of narcotics from the apartment: 1,244 grams of methamphetamine, 334 grams of fentanyl, 463 grams of cocaine, and 54 grams of crack cocaine. Additionally, they discovered two blenders with traces of cocaine powder and fentanyl. Investigators discovered a loaded .40 caliber handgun and ammunition in the kitchen, along with a total of $5,645 in cash stashed throughout the residence. In executing the search warrant, authorities encountered Tripplet and Singleton inside Tripplet's car, which was located near the apartment. Officers arrested Tripplet and Singleton and recovered $7,238 from the vehicle.

On November 30, 2022, a grand jury indicted Tripplet on two counts: (1) possession with intent to distribute controlled substances in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), and (2) being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Under the terms of the plea deal, Tripplet pleaded guilty to only the first count.

During the sentencing phase, prosecutors requested the district court set an offense level of 33, corresponding to a Guidelines range of 235 to 293 months' imprisonment. The district court calculated this number by starting with the 32-point base offense level, adding 4 levels for two separate two-point enhancements, then reducing by 3 levels because Tripplet accepted responsibility. This proposal matched the recommendation in the presentence report.

Tripplet objected. He argued that his offense level should be adjusted to 31, which corresponds to a range of 188 to 235 months in prison. The difference hinged on the applicability of U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(12), which carries a two-level enhancement if a defendant "knowingly maintains a premises (i.e., a building, room, or enclosure) for the purpose of manufacturing or distributing a controlled substance, including storage of a controlled substance for the purpose of distribution." U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1 cmt. n.17. Tripplet argued that the drug-premises enhancement was intended for more serious conduct, such as when a defendant runs a "classic" drug house "that really has no other purpose except to serve as a place where people can buy and use drugs or commit other crimes there." Sent'g Tr., R. 44, PageID 202. Given that Tripplet shared the apartment with his girlfriend and her two young children, he said the evidence failed to demonstrate that the primary purpose of maintaining the residence was drug manufacturing and distribution.

The district court overruled the objection. It justified the enhancement by citing several factors: the large drug quantity, the fact that a "significant portion of the living area [was] devoted to some aspect of drug dealing, whether concealment or otherwise," the "use of [the blenders]," and the observation that drugs were "out in the open in a household with children, and actually in the kitchen getting [] made up for sale." Id. at PageID 206-07. In the district court's view, applying the two-level increase to Tripplet's sentence fulfilled the objectives of the enhancement because Tripplet "expose[d] the people there and then the people in the neighborhood to the kinds of risks that go with drug dealing, both violence as well as vagrancy or other problems that might come from addicts in the area." Id. And while Tripplet and his family lived in the apartment, the district court explained "[i]t's possible to have more than one princip[al] purpose or important purpose in using a property." Id. at PageID 207.

With the enhancement, the court calculated a Guidelines range of 235 to 293 months. The court then varied downward based on its analysis of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, ultimately sentencing Tripplet to 188 months of imprisonment— the lowest Guidelines sentence had the court not applied the drug-house enhancement. Tripplet appealed.

ANALYSIS

Tripplet challenges his sentence on a single issue—whether the district court correctly applied the drug-premises enhancement. Given that the undisputed evidence suggests Tripplet routinely conducted drug business from his home, including conducting drug transactions out of the home and storing drugs and proceeds there, we affirm the decision.

I. Standard of Review

We consider Tripplet's challenge to the application of the drug-premises enhancement a challenge to the procedural reasonableness of his sentence. See United States v. Taylor, 85 F.4th 386, 388 (6th Cir. 2023). While we generally review procedural reasonableness questions for an abuse of discretion, sentencing enhancements come with their own standards of review. With respect to the drug-premises enhancement, we review the factual determinations underpinning the application of an enhancement for clear error. United States v. Terry, 83 F.4th 1039, 1040-41 (6th Cir. 2023). Then we review legal interpretations of relevant legal texts de novo. Id.; United States v. Rich, 14 F.4th 489, 495 (6th Cir. 2021).

For this appeal, Tripplet does not challenge the facts, so we accept them as the district court found them. Tripplet's legal argument it is sparse (at best three pages), but he contends based on the legal standard for U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(12) and our precedents applying it that the facts of his case are insufficient to support the enhancement. Through our precedents, we have developed benchmarks to understand what set of facts suffices for applying the drug-premises-enhancement. For example, our caselaw gives parameters for the quantity of drugs that must be stored and the frequency of transactions that give rise to the inference that a defendant maintained the premises for "the purpose of" selling or manufacturing drugs. Id.; see e.g., Terry, 83 F.4th at 1041-43. Evaluating sentencing challenges based on precedent and these benchmarks facilitates equal application of the enhancement. And Tripplet contends that the district court's decision to apply the premises enhancement, given the uncontested facts, contravenes our precedent interpreting it. Accordingly, our review here "only involves interpreting the Guidelines and applying them to uncontested facts," Rich, 14 F.4th at 495 (citing United States v. Paauwe, 968 F.3d 614, 617 (6th Cir. 2020)), which includes "comparing accepted facts in the case before us with the facts of various precedents," Terry, 83 F.4th at 1041. And for this inquiry, "our review is do novo." Rich, 14 F.4th at 495; see also Terry, 83 F.4th at 1041 (applying "fresh review").

II. Application of the Drug-Premises...