U.S.S.G. § 2D1.2
Drug Offenses Occurring Near Protected Locations or Involving Underage or Pregnant Individuals; Attempt or Conspiracy
(a) Base Offense Level (Apply the greatest):
(1) 2 plus the offense level from §2D1.1 applicable to the quantity of controlled substances directly involving a protected location or an underage or pregnant individual; or
(2) 1 plus the offense level from §2D1.1 applicable to the total quantity of controlled substances involved in the offense; or
(3) 26, if the offense involved a person less than eighteen years of age; or
(4) 13, otherwise.
Commentary
Statutory Provisions: 21 U.S.C. §§ 859 (formerly 21 U.S.C. § 845), 860 (formerly 21 U.S.C. § 845a), 861 (formerly 21 U.S.C. § 845b).Application Note:
1. This guideline applies only in a case in which the defendant is convicted of a statutory violation of drug trafficking in a protected location or involving an underage or pregnant individual (including an attempt or conspiracy to commit such a violation) or in a case in which the defendant stipulated to such a statutory violation. See §1B1.2(a). In a case involving such a conviction but in which only part of the relevant offense conduct directly involved a protected location or an underage or pregnant individual, subsections (a)(1) and (a)(2) may result in different offense levels. For example, if the defendant, as part of the same course of conduct or common scheme or plan, sold 5 grams of heroin near a protected location and 10 grams of heroin elsewhere, the offense level from subsection (a)(1) would be level 14 (2 plus the offense level for the sale of 5 grams of heroin, the amount sold near the protected location); the offense level from subsection (a)(2) would be level 15 (1 plus the offense level for the sale of 15 grams of heroin, the total amount of heroin involved in the offense). Background: This section implements the direction to the Commission in section 6454 of Public Law 100–690.Historical Note: Effective November 1, 1987. Amended effective January 15, 1988 (amendment 22); November 1, 1989 (amendment 135); November 1, 1990 (amendment 319); November 1, 1991 (amendment 421); November 1, 1992 (amendment 447); November 1, 2000 (amendment 591); November 1, 2014 (amendment 782); November 1, 2024 (amendment 831).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 217
cases (9 in the last 5 years), 1990–2025 · leading case: UNITED STATES of Am., Appellant in No. 97-1433, v. Harry Lee RIDDICK, Jr., Harry Lee Riddick, Appellant in No. 97-1367, 156 F.3d 505 (3d Cir. 1998).
UNITED STATES of Am., Appellant in No. 97-1433, v. Harry Lee RIDDICK, Jr., Harry Lee Riddick, Appellant in No. 97-1367, 156 F.3d 505 (3d Cir. 1998). “1995) (hereinafter “USSG”), the guideline applicable to his CCE conviction, even though USSG § 2D1.2, the guideline applicable to his conviction for distribution of cocaine near a school, required a higher offense level of 43 and a mandatory life sentence.”
United States v. Trini L. Crawford, A.K.A. Malik Hayworth, A.K.A. T, 185 F.3d 1024 (9th Cir. 1999). “1 and U.S.S.G. § 2D1.2. Section 2D1.1 is captioned “Unlawful Manufacturing, Importing, Exporting, or Trafficking (Including Possession with Intent to Commit These Offenses); Attempt or Conspiracy.”
United States v. Mary E. Warnick, 287 F.3d 299 (4th Cir. 2002). “§ 860 , her guideline sentence is determined by U.S.S.G. § 2D1.2, which cross-references U.”
United States v. Gilberto Martinez (03-3833), Jerel Henderson (03-3835), Kevin S. Harris (03-3879), Brian Garrett (03-3917), 430 F.3d 317 (6th Cir. 2005). “1), and the distribution of drugs within 1000 feet of a school (USSG § 2D1.2). 2 Defendants raise other sentencing errors in addition to arguing that resentencing is required under Booker .”
United States v. Mundy, 621 F.3d 283 (3d Cir. 2010). “” U.S.S.G. § 2D1.2 cmt. n. 1 (emphasis added).”
United States v. Chandler, 125 F.3d 892 (5th Cir. 1997). “1, but added a two-level increase under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.2 because the offense occurred near a protected location, as defined by 21 U.”
United States v. Carl J. Curtis, United States of Am. v. Carl J. Curtis, 336 F.3d 666 (8th Cir. 2003). “In our prior opinion, we did not decide any issues relating to the application of U.S.S.G. § 2D1.2, and we did not establish any restrictions preventing the district court from considering this guideline.”
United States v. Yoshio Takahashi, 205 F.3d 1161 (9th Cir. 2000). “We reverse to the extent that the district court relied on U.S.S.G. § 2D1.2 in calculating Takaha-shi’s base offense level.”
United States v. Sampson, 140 F.3d 585 (4th Cir. 1998). “U.S.S.G. § 2D1.2 (emphasis added). Thus, the Guidelines require a sentencing court to determine what portion of the total amount of controlled substances were directly involved in a “protected location.”
United States v. Mitchell Locklear, United States of Am. v. Lee Allen Lowry, 24 F.3d 641 (4th Cir. 1994). “We remand Mitchell Locklear’s case for resentencing in light of the district court’s erroneous use of U.S.S.G. § 2D1.2 as a specific offense characteristic to increase Mitchell Locklear’s base offense level.”
United States v. Diaz, 670 F.3d 332 (1st Cir. 2012). “the district court erred by: (1) admitting hearsay statements of his co-conspirators; (2) admitting evidence of his relation to a known drug dealer; (3) admitting evidence of a riot that occurred in Carioca; (4) failing to give the jury a multiple conspiracy instruction; (5)…”
United States v. White, 765 F.3d 1240 (10th Cir. 2014). “Then, with respect to Count 4, he applied U.S.S.G § 2D1.2 and determined that possession with intent to distribute 21.”
U.S.S.G. §2D1.2(3): 1 case
United States v. Stevenson, 227 F. Supp. 3d 953 (N.D. Ill. 2016).
U.S.S.G. §2D1.2(a): 10 cases
United States v. Sampson, 140 F.3d 585 (4th Cir. 1998). “U.S.S.G. § 2D1.2 (emphasis added). Thus, the Guidelines require a sentencing court to determine what portion of the total amount of controlled substances were directly involved in a “protected location.”
United States v. Mary E. Warnick, 287 F.3d 299 (4th Cir. 2002). “§ 860 , her guideline sentence is determined by U.S.S.G. § 2D1.2, which cross-references U.”
United States v. Trini L. Crawford, A.K.A. Malik Hayworth, A.K.A. T, 185 F.3d 1024 (9th Cir. 1999). “1 and U.S.S.G. § 2D1.2. Section 2D1.1 is captioned “Unlawful Manufacturing, Importing, Exporting, or Trafficking (Including Possession with Intent to Commit These Offenses); Attempt or Conspiracy.”
United States v. Price, 346 F. App'x 796 (3d Cir. 2009).
United States v. Ware, 840 F. Supp. 2d 850 (E.D. Pa. 2012).
U.S.S.G. §2D1.2(a)(1): 35 cases
United States v. Diaz, 670 F.3d 332 (1st Cir. 2012). “the district court erred by: (1) admitting hearsay statements of his co-conspirators; (2) admitting evidence of his relation to a known drug dealer; (3) admitting evidence of a riot that occurred in Carioca; (4) failing to give the jury a multiple conspiracy instruction; (5)…”
United States v. Christin Campbell-Martin, 17 F.4th 807 (8th Cir. 2021).
United States v. Joseph Cruz, 981 F.2d 613 (1st Cir. 1992).
United States v. Dung Bui, 795 F.3d 363 (3d Cir. 2015).
United States v. Mundy, 621 F.3d 283 (3d Cir. 2010). “” U.S.S.G. § 2D1.2 cmt. n. 1 (emphasis added).”
U.S.S.G. §2D1.2(a)(2): 31 cases
United States v. Gully, 619 F. Supp. 2d 633 (N.D. Iowa 2009).
United States v. Saddler, 538 F.3d 879 (8th Cir. 2008).
United States v. Cortez C. Guyton, 36 F.3d 655 (7th Cir. 1994).
UNITED STATES of Am., Appellant in No. 97-1433, v. Harry Lee RIDDICK, Jr., Harry Lee Riddick, Appellant in No. 97-1367, 156 F.3d 505 (3d Cir. 1998). “1995) (hereinafter “USSG”), the guideline applicable to his CCE conviction, even though USSG § 2D1.2, the guideline applicable to his conviction for distribution of cocaine near a school, required a higher offense level of 43 and a mandatory life sentence.”
United States v. Angela Euans, Also Known as Angela Mangine, 285 F.3d 656 (8th Cir. 2002).
U.S.S.G. §2D1.2(a)(3): 5 cases
United States v. Patricia Marie Pool & Larry Donald Baird, 937 F.2d 1528 (10th Cir. 1991).
United States v. Dicus, 579 F. Supp. 2d 1142 (N.D. Iowa 2008).
United States v. Walker (4th Cir. 1998).
United States v. Commerford (2d Cir. 2017).
United States v. Commerford, 708 F. App'x 715 (2d Cir. 2017).
U.S.S.G. §2D1.2(a)(5): 2 cases
United States v. Patricio Escobar, III, 866 F.3d 333 (5th Cir. 2017).
United States v. Patricio Escobar, III (5th Cir. 2017).
U.S.S.G. §2D1.2(a)(l): 44 cases
United States v. Carl J. Curtis, United States of Am. v. Carl J. Curtis, 336 F.3d 666 (8th Cir. 2003). “In our prior opinion, we did not decide any issues relating to the application of U.S.S.G. § 2D1.2, and we did not establish any restrictions preventing the district court from considering this guideline.”
United States v. Anthony Gerald White, Sr., 405 F.3d 208 (4th Cir. 2005).
United States v. Russell B. Allen, 106 F.3d 695 (6th Cir. 1997).
United States v. Afnan Jerome Parker, 30 F.3d 542 (4th Cir. 1994).
United States v. Cruz-Rodriguez, 541 F.3d 19 (1st Cir. 2008).
U.S.S.G. §2D1.2(b)(16)(A): 1 case
United States v. Keithley Parris (3d Cir. 2023).
U.S.S.G. §2D1.2(b)(18): 1 case
Davis v. United States (W.D. Mich. 2024).
U.S.S.G. §2D1.2(c)(2): 1 case
United States v. Rex A. Hopper, 11 F.4th 561 (7th Cir. 2021).
U.S.S.G. §2D1.2(c)(l): 1 case
United States v. Arsenio Ramirez Santacruz, 183 F. App'x 879 (11th Cir. 2006).
U.S.S.G. §2D1.2(d): 2 cases
United States v. Ira Harvey Liss, 265 F.3d 1220 (11th Cir. 2001).
United States v. Jason Henry Davis, 697 F. App'x 999 (11th Cir. 2017).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.