In U.S. v. Grayson, the defendant appealed his sentence due to application of an enhancement for a previous Michigan state conviction for maintaining a drug house, which doubled his five-year mandatory minimum. This is an appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan at Flint. This Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals opinion was released on September 27, 2013.
For the purposes of enhancing his federal sentence under 21 U.S.C. § 802(44), the defendant argued that the state offense does not qualify as a prior felony drug crime. He contended that the statute requires a defendant to be convicted of a drug offense featuring distribution or possession and not just aiding others. The enhancement is defined as “an offense that is punishable by imprisonment for more than one year under any law of the United States or of a state or foreign country that prohibits or restricts conduct relating to narcotic drugs, marihuana, anabolic steroids, or depressant or stimulant substances.” The Court decided to address this since the question has not been previously decided.
He was convicted of maintaining drug house
The defendant was indicted in 2010 for possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) and for conspiracy to distribute powder and crack cocaine and other drugs under 21 U.S.C. § 846; 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). He entered a plea while reserving his right to appeal the lower court’s decision whether his state conviction qualified as a prior felony drug offense under the statute. In 2004, he was convicted of maintaining drug house—which requires knowledge that the building was used for keeping and selling narcotics along with general control and maintenance of the building. In addition, the Court stated that the state crime satisfies the Section 802(44) requirement that the penalty involved is more than one year in prison. The Supreme Court clearly indicated that a state’s method of categorizing offenses is not relevant and that the inquiry should focus on the length of the potential sentence to determine if it qualifies as a felony drug offense.
In addition, the Court stated that the defendant made an error in stating that maintaining a drug house does not “prohibit or restrict conduct relating to narcotic drugs.” First, the Court stated that the conviction shows that he had knowledge of the drug activity in the home. The Court also asserted that nothing in the language of the statute implies or states that personal use, possession, or distribution of drugs is a requirement. Moreover, the Court noted that using average English, “maintaining a drug house,” is an offense “related” to drugs under state law. Finally, the Court stated that the cases the defendant cited are irrelevant.
In conclusion, the Court applied the federal enhancement without regard to the Michigan sentencing scheme. The elements of a drug house were determined to qualify for the enhancement. Therefore, the Court was required to apply the enhancement just as the district court did.
If you have been charged with maintaining a drug house under state law—or with any federal drug crime—the aggressive trial lawyers at The Kronzek Firm PLC, are available to assist you.