Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals vacated a man’s district court sentence for his use of a storage unit in a drug operation, ruling the lower court failed to establish that the storage unit was used primarily to distribute the drugs.
According to court records, Travis Montgomery pleaded guilty to distributing methamphetamine for his actions over a one-month period in June 2021, when he sold the drug to a confidential source with the FBI on three occasions.
He was sentenced to 235 months of imprisonment and five years of supervised release for distribution of 50 or more grams of methamphetamine.
In addition to his charge for distributing, the district court added a two-level sentencing enhancement after finding Montgomery had used a storage unit primarily for his drug operation.
Under § 2D1.1(b)(12) of the United States Sentencing Guidelines, a two-level enhancement can be made if a defendant “maintained a premises for the purpose of…distributing a controlled substance.”
However, the circuit court stated the present record failed to establish that the storage unit was primarily used for that purpose.
In a recent circuit court case, United States v. Ford, 22 F.4th 687, 695 (7th Cir. 2022), circuit court judges warned against applying the enhancement beyond its designated application.
In the case, the defendant had been selling drugs out of a bedroom in a friend’s house for four months.
Objecting to the sentencing enhancement, Montgomery argued his month-long operation at the storage unit fell short of the four-month period in Ford and, further, that cases affirming the enhancement dealt with houses or homes, not storage units.
While the 7th Circuit disagreed that the enhancement applies exclusively to houses and homes, since its use of the word “premises” does not rule out storage units, the court stated the record doesn’t prove Montgomery only used the storage unit for his drug operation.
In Montgomery’s case, the government only presented three occasions where he used the unit to sell drugs.
Based on the record, someone accessed the unit several times between May 30 and June 11, but it was unclear who accessed it and for what purpose (Montgomery’s sister leased the unit).
Since the record couldn’t show who accessed the unit and why, the circuit court stated that the district court did not have proof to claim Montgomery was using it to distribute drugs.
In vacating the district court’s judgment, the circuit court remands for further proceedings.
The case is United States of America v. Travis Montgomery, No. 23-1976.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.