Clarifying the Scope of the U.S.S.G. §2D1.1(b)(12) Drug-Involved Premises Enhancement

Introduction

In United States v. Peatman, 24-2150-cr (2d Cir. May 16, 2025), the Second Circuit addressed the application of the two-level Sentencing Guidelines enhancement under U.S.S.G. §2D1.1(b)(12) for “maintaining a drug-involved premises.” The defendant-appellant, Damien Peatman, pled guilty to possessing cocaine with intent to distribute after law enforcement discovered drugs, paraphernalia and a firearm in his mother’s home following a murder investigation. At sentencing, the district court applied the §2D1.1(b)(12) enhancement over Peatman’s objection. On appeal, Peatman argued that he neither owned nor controlled the property and that his bedroom’s primary use was not drug distribution. The Second Circuit affirmed.

Summary of the Judgment

The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s decision to impose a two-level enhancement under §2D1.1(b)(12). Relying on the totality of the circumstances, the court found that Peatman “maintained” the premises—both the shared residence and, in the alternative, his bedroom—for purposes of drug distribution. Key facts included the locked bedroom containing bagged pills, a scale, packaging materials, a drug ledger, a firearm, witness testimony of on-site transactions, and text messages arranging sales. The court held that ownership or formal possessory interest is only one factor; control of access, frequency of sales, presence of proceeds and tools of the trade, and significance of the premises to the venture suffice to trigger the enhancement. The Second Circuit concluded no procedural or substantive error occurred and affirmed the sentence.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

United States v. Sampson, 898 F.3d 287 (2d Cir. 2018): Standards for procedural reasonableness and sentencing review.
United States v. Yilmaz, 910 F.3d 686 (2d Cir. 2018): Deferential abuse-of-discretion standard for procedural reasonableness.
United States v. Cossey, 632 F.3d 82 (2d Cir. 2011): Review of factual findings at sentencing for clear error.
United States v. Kent, 821 F.3d 362 (2d Cir. 2016): De novo review of legal interpretation of the Guidelines.
United States v. Vinales, 78 F.4th 550 (2d Cir. 2023): Totality-of-the-circumstances approach to §2D1.1(b)(12).
United States v. Esteras, 102 F.4th 98 (2d Cir. 2024): Factors supporting premises enhancement—frequency of sales, storage, tools of trade.
United States v. Griswold, No. 23-7806-cr (2d Cir. Oct. 29, 2024): Application of §2D1.1(b)(12) where home served as distribution hub.
United States v. Holley, 638 F. App’x 93 (2d Cir. 2016): Control of access supports premises maintenance even without ownership.
United States v. Sampel, 860 F. App’x 789 (2d Cir. 2021): Drug paraphernalia and transactions at home justify enhancement.

Legal Reasoning

Under U.S.S.G. §2D1.1(b)(12), a defendant faces a two-level enhancement if he “knowingly maintain[ed] a premises ... for the purpose of ... distributing a controlled substance.” The commentary (n.17) lists non-exclusive factors: ownership or lease, control of access or activities, frequency and number of sales, quantities stored, presence of proceeds/employees/tools, and the premises’ significance to the venture. The Second Circuit confirmed that it reviews district interpretations of the Guidelines de novo and factual findings for clear error.

Applying these principles, the court held:

Possessory interest is not required; “maintain” depends on totality of circumstances (Esteras).
Peatman controlled access: he conducted and hosted sales, granted entry to associates, and paid most household bills.
Law enforcement found substantial evidence—bagged cocaine, pill bottles, scales, sandwich bags, cooking equipment, a ledger and a firearm—both in the bedroom and outdoors.
Witnesses and text messages confirmed repeated drug-distribution activity at the residence and bedroom.
Even limiting “premises” to his bedroom, its primary use for storing, packaging and distributing drugs justified the enhancement.

Having adopted the PSR’s findings (unopposed) and weighed the §3553(a) factors, the district court’s application of §2D1.1(b)(12) was neither legally flawed nor based on clearly erroneous facts.

Impact

United States v. Peatman reinforces and clarifies several points for future sentencing:

Ownership or formal possessory interest in a property is only one factor; control of access and activity can support the enhancement.
Courts may find “maintenance” of a subset of a residence (e.g., a bedroom) for drug distribution sufficient if that area plays a primary role in the enterprise.
Detailed factual findings—drug packaging, ledgers, paraphernalia, frequent sales, and witness testimony—are critical to sustain the enhancement on review.
Defense objections that a premises was too informal or peripheral will likely fail where evidence shows recurring distribution activity tied to the location.

Lower courts should carefully document the totality of the circumstances when applying §2D1.1(b)(12) and explain how the factors coalesce to demonstrate maintenance of a drug-involved premises.

Complex Concepts Simplified

“Maintain a premises”: Not just owning or renting a property. It means using and controlling a space—house, apartment or even one room—for drug activities.

Totality of the circumstances test: No single factor is decisive. Courts look at the overall picture—ownership, control, frequency of deals, tools and proceeds present, how important the site is to the drug operation.

De novo vs. clear-error review: Legal questions (e.g., how to interpret the Guidelines) get fresh review (de novo). Factual findings (what actually happened) are upheld unless clearly wrong.

Conclusion

United States v. Peatman cements the principle that the §2D1.1(b)(12) enhancement applies broadly to any space knowingly used to facilitate drug distribution, even absent formal ownership. By approving the application to both an entire home and, alternatively, a single bedroom, the Second Circuit has provided trial courts with guidance on evaluating “maintenance” of drug-involved premises under the totality of the circumstances. This decision will shape future sentencing by underscoring the importance of detailed factual findings on control, sales activity, storage and tools of the trade whenever a defendant houses a drug business in a residence.