Search & seizure; Motion to suppress; Whether there was “probable cause” for a search warrant; United States v Sanders; Sentencing; Enhancement for “maintaining a drug premises”; USSG § 2D1.1(b)(12); Whether there was sufficient evidence that defendant opened or maintained the house to manufacture or distribute a controlled substance; Control; United States v Bennett (Unpub 6th Cir); United States v Whiteside (Unpub 6th Cir); Standard of review; Buford v United States

The court held that defendant-Florence’s motion to suppress was properly denied because the search warrant at issue was supported by probable cause. Also, applying clear error review, it upheld the district court’s ruling that the “maintaining a drug premises” sentencing enhancement applied where there was sufficient evidence that Florence exercised de facto control over the premises. Federal agents observed him leave a house, travel to an agreed-upon location and sell drugs to an undercover officer. He then immediately returned to the house. The agents obtained a search warrant for the home and found large amounts of cash and ammunition, guns, body armor, fentanyl, and marijuana. Florence was indicted on firearm and drug charges. He unsuccessfully moved to suppress the evidence seized under the search warrant, and then pled guilty. In sentencing him to 106 months, the district court applied a two-level enhancement for “maintaining a premises for the manufacture or distribution of a controlled substance.” On appeal, the court found that Sanders foreclosed Florence’s challenge to the search. Probable cause supported the warrant where the federal officers had seen him leave the house, conduct a drug sale, and return to the same house. The court rejected his attempts to distinguish Sanders. The affidavit did not have to be “identical” to the one in that case and the court found that, if “anything, the evidence here is stronger than in Sanders.” Florence also argued that the district court erred by applying the two-level sentence enhancement under § 2D1.1(b)(12). He asserted that there was no evidence to support the maintenance prong required for the enhancement to apply. The court noted that “the appropriate standard of review for the district court’s application of the maintenance prong to a particular set of facts is murky.” Considering Buford, it concluded clear-error review was the appropriate standard. And applying this standard made “this an easy case.” The court acknowledged the fact that Florence’s father owned the house and that Florence was allowed to access it and store things there did not “necessarily mean that [he] exercised de facto control over” it. But the court noted that Bennett was similar to this case. As in that case, Florence did not “have a legal or possessory interest in the” home. However, he “expressly admitted” that the drugs there belonged to him. “Further, there were ‘additional indicia of drug trafficking’ at the residence: a pill press, scales, firearms, body armor, a money counter, and almost sixty thousand dollars in cash. That drug paraphernalia provided circumstantial evidence that the defendant did in fact control the premises.” Affirmed.