Beyond the Substance: Sixth Circuit Clarifies “Relevant Conduct” Across Different Drugs and Affirms Broad Application of the Drug-Premises Enhancement

Introduction

In United States v. Jaylen Sain, No. 24-5469 (6th Cir. July 25, 2025), the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit addressed two recurrent—and often litigated—sentencing questions under the United States Sentencing Guidelines (U.S.S.G.):

When may a district court treat possession or distribution of a different controlled substance as “relevant conduct” to the offense of conviction?
What showing is necessary to trigger the two-level enhancement for “maintaining a drug premises” under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(12)?

Defendant–appellant Jaylen Sain pleaded guilty to conspiracy and possession with intent to distribute marijuana. He challenged a Guidelines range that incorporated three ounces of methamphetamine as relevant conduct and included the § 2D1.1(b)(12) enhancement. The Sixth Circuit affirmed a downward-variant 50-month sentence, thereby crystallising two important doctrinal points:

Different drugs can form part of the “same course of conduct” when the factual nexus demonstrates similarity, regularity, and temporal proximity, even if the defendant is convicted of only one substance.
A residence qualifies as a drug premises whenever one of its primary purposes—among several—is the storage or distribution of narcotics, without the need for an exclusive drug-trafficking purpose.

Summary of the Judgment

The panel (Cole, Gibbons, and Bush, JJ.; opinion by Judge Gibbons) held:

Relevant Conduct (§ 1B1.3(a)(2)). The district court properly added three ounces of meth to Sain’s drug quantity. The meth possession was “part of the same course of conduct” as the marijuana conspiracy because it involved the same location, many of the same actors, and a continuous distribution objective. Evidence of two 2021 meth transactions, plus an 88-gram seizure in 2023, satisfied the “regularity” prong.
Drug-Premises Enhancement (§ 2D1.1(b)(12)). The district court did not clearly err in finding that one of the principal uses of Sain’s residence was drug distribution. Testimony from an FBI task-force officer and a confidential source, coupled with a search yielding marijuana, scales, and cash, met the Government’s burden by a preponderance of the evidence.
Sentence Affirmed. Because the Guidelines range was correctly calculated and the below-Guidelines sentence procedurally reasonable, the 50-month term stood.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

United States v. Amerson, 886 F.3d 568 (6th Cir. 2018) – articulated the “similarity, regularity, and temporal proximity” test for relevant conduct.
United States v. Benton, 957 F.3d 696 (6th Cir. 2020) – recognised that different drug types can still be sufficiently related for § 1B1.3 purposes.
United States v. Hill, 79 F.3d 1477 (6th Cir. 1996) – described limits on regularity when only one other offense is shown.
United States v. Johnson, 737 F.3d 444 (6th Cir. 2013) – set out the three elements of the drug-premises enhancement.
United States v. Bell, 766 F.3d 634 (6th Cir. 2014) & United States v. Leggett, 800 F. App’x 378 (6th Cir. 2020) – held that storing and distributing narcotics at a residence “will usually suffice” for § 2D1.1(b)(12).
Newer circuit decisions (Tripplet, Knipp, Terry) provided up-to-date formulations but did not materially depart from earlier standards.

Legal Reasoning

1. Relevant Conduct across Drug Types

The key doctrinal move was the court’s refusal to erect a bright-line barrier between different controlled substances. Applying Application Note 5(B)(ii) to § 1B1.3(a)(2), the panel walked through the three-factor test:

Regularity: At least two meth distributions (May & June 2021) plus an 88-gram meth seizure in April 2023 satisfied the need for repeated conduct. The court deemed possession of approximately 3 ounces (~85 grams) “inconsistent with personal use,” referencing United States v. Hampton, 769 F. App’x 308 (6th Cir. 2019).
Temporal Proximity: Meth and marijuana events overlapped in June 2021, and the final meth seizure occurred two months after the conspiracy’s charged end, well within the nine-month benchmark approved in United States v. Phillips, 516 F.3d 479 (6th Cir. 2008).
Similarity: Same location, same co-conspirators, same organisational head (Hendrix), and the shared purpose of furthering an ongoing trafficking enterprise. The court reiterated that “different substance” is not fatal where the contextual overlap is meaningful (Benton).

Having found all three factors satisfied, the panel endorsed the district court’s inclusion of meth quantity in the converted drug weight table, raising the base offense level under § 2D1.1(c).

2. Drug-Premises Enhancement

The Guidelines require proof that the defendant “maintained” the premises “for the purpose” of drug trafficking. Citing Tripplet, the panel emphasised the phrase “one of the principal uses,” rejecting Sain’s argument that lawful family-residential use negated the enhancement.

Evidence credited by the district court included:

Confidential-source descriptions of dog-food-bucket deliveries/pick-ups.
Intercepted communications among Sain, Wilder, and Hendrix.
Seizure of over a pound of marijuana, scales, and cash during a warrant execution.
Sain’s own admissions of “numerous” deliveries and sales from the residence.

The Sixth Circuit reaffirmed that storage plus distribution activity “will usually suffice” (Bell; § 2D1.1 cmt. n.17) and found no clear error.

Impact

The decision cements two practical guidelines for district courts and litigants within the Sixth Circuit (Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, Tennessee):

Mixed-Substance Cases. Prosecutors may rely on conduct involving wholly different drugs to raise converted drug weights, provided they establish similarity, regularity, and temporal proximity. Defense counsel must marshal contrary evidence on all three prongs or show the conduct was purely personal-use.
Drug-Premises Proof. The threshold for § 2D1.1(b)(12) remains low. Even dual-use homes (family residence plus drug operation) face the enhancement if trafficking is a principal—not sole—function.

Because Sain is post-Kimbrough/Booker, the ruling also influences appellate review: a properly calculated Guidelines range remains the “starting point,” and downward variances will rarely be disturbed absent legal error.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Relevant Conduct (U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3): Extra offenses that are not charged or are dismissed, but that share a close enough relationship with the offense of conviction to affect the Guidelines calculation.
Preponderance of the Evidence: The evidentiary standard at sentencing—more likely than not (i.e., >50% probable).
Drug-Premises Enhancement (§ 2D1.1(b)(12)): Adds two offense levels if the defendant maintained a place (home, storage unit, barbershop, etc.) whose principal purpose includes drug manufacturing or distribution.
Base Offense Level (§ 2D1.1(c)): The starting numeric value set by total drug weight (converted to marijuana equivalents). Added conduct increases the drug weight, which increases the level.

Conclusion

United States v. Jaylen Sain reinforces that sentencing courts may look beyond the charged substance to a defendant’s broader trafficking behaviour when the factual links are tight. It also underscores the breadth of the drug-premises enhancement, cautioning defendants that operating even part-time drug activity from a home exposes them to higher penalties. Going forward, the ruling will provide prosecutors with a firmer foundation for mixed-substance conversions and guide district courts in articulating findings that withstand appellate scrutiny. Defense counsel, meanwhile, must be prepared to attack each element—similarity, regularity, and temporal proximity—when contesting relevant conduct and to supply affirmative evidence that a residence served incidental, not principal, trafficking functions.