U.S.S.G. § 2D1.8
Renting or Managing a Drug Establishment; Attempt or Conspiracy
(a) Base Offense Level:
(1) The offense level from §2D1.1 applicable to the underlying controlled substance offense, except as provided below.
(2) If the defendant had no participation in the underlying controlled substance offense other than allowing use of the premises, the offense level shall be 4 levels less than the offense level from §2D1.1 applicable to the underlying controlled substance offense, but not greater than level 26.
(b) Special Instruction
(1) If the offense level is determined under subsection (a)(2), do not apply an adjustment under §3B1.2 (Mitigating Role).
Commentary
Statutory Provision: 21 U.S.C. § 856.Application Note:
1. Subsection (a)(2) does not apply unless the defendant had no participation in the underlying controlled substance offense other than allowing use of the premises. For example, subsection (a)(2) would not apply to a defendant who possessed a dangerous weapon in connection with the offense, a defendant who guarded the cache of controlled substances, a defendant who arranged for the use of the premises for the purpose of facilitating a drug transaction, a defendant who allowed the use of more than one premises, a defendant who made telephone calls to facilitate the underlying controlled substance offense, or a defendant who otherwise assisted in the commission of the underlying controlled substance offense. Furthermore, subsection (a)(2) does not apply unless the defendant initially leased, rented, purchased, or otherwise acquired a possessory interest in the premises for a legitimate purpose. Finally, subsection (a)(2) does not apply if the defendant had previously allowed any premises to be used as a drug establishment without regard to whether such prior misconduct resulted in a conviction. Background: This section covers the offense of knowingly opening, maintaining, managing, or controlling any building, room, or enclosure for the purpose of manufacturing, distributing, storing, or using a controlled substance contrary to law (e.g., a "crack house").Historical Note: Effective November 1, 1987. Amended effective November 1, 1991 (amendment 394); November 1, 1992 (amendments 447 and 448); November 1, 2002 (amendment 640).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 66
cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1990–2025 · leading case: In Re Sealed Case
In Re Sealed Case (2009)
“Relying on the 2005 edition of the United States Sentencing Commission Guidelines Manual, the PSR prepared by the probation office calculated appellant's base offense level under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.8(a), the section of the Guidelines that governs convictions for maintaining a drug…”
United States v. Howard Eugene Leasure (2003)
“Principally at issue is whether the government bears the burden of proving at sentencing that a convicted narcotics laboratory operator actually participated in the underlying drug offense under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.8. Leasure contends that imposing that burden upon the defendant is…”
United States v. James Henry Hunt (2007)
“U.S.S.G. § 2D1.8 cmt. n. 1 (1998). The district court concluded that subsection (a)(2) did not apply in this case.”
United States v. Shelly Mashek (2005)
“Applying U.S.S.G. § 2D1.8, the PSR cross-referenced to § 2D 1.”
United States v. Levi Culps (2002)
“A defendant convicted of maintaining a drug house is sentenced pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2D1.8, which provides that a defendant is sentenced for the amount of drugs involved in the underlying offenses that took place at the drug house as calculated pursuant to U.”
United States v. Oscar Marnell St. Julian, Ii, A/K/A Davion Walker (1990)
“8, “Renting or Managing a Drug Establishment,” directs the sentencing court to increase the offense level by two “[i]f a firearm or other dangerous weapon was possessed during commission of the offense_” U.S.S.G. § lB1.3(a)(l) directs sentencing courts to consider, in…”
United States v. Jackson (2012)
“JACKSON stipulate and agree that the defendant's base offense level be calculated at 30 pursuant to USSG §§ 2D1.8(a) and 1B1.3. The United States and the defendant also stipulate and agree that, pursuant to USSG § 2D1.”
United States v. Alfred Andre Dickerson (1999)
“U.S.S.G. § 2D1.8 comment. (n.l). Of the few published cases discussing § 2D1.”
United States v. Eddie Lee Cabbell, United States of America v. Loren Martin Craig, Also Known as Marty Cabbell (1994)
“In support of this position, Craig asserts that the jury did not reach a unanimous agreement on whether Craig participated in the distribution of drugs or used a communication facility to do so; rather it simply found that Craig had maintained premises for the distribution of…”
United States v. Kelvin Treavaughn Davis (1990)
“U.S.S.G. § 2D1.8, entitled “Renting or Managing a Drug Establishment,” sets 16 *1212 as the base level for the offense.”
United States v. Patch (2021)
“Withal, USSG §2D1.8(a), quoted above, bifurcates the calculation of the BOL in such cases.”
United States v. Yahnke (2003)
“Yahnke originally contended that his adjusted offense level should be 16, and his total offense level should consequently be 13, based on his contention that he is entitled to a four-level reduction pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2D1.8(a)(2), because he had no “participation” in the…”
— U.S.S.G. §2D1.8(2) — 1 case
— U.S.S.G. §2D1.8(a) — 10 cases
United States v. Jackson (2012)
“JACKSON stipulate and agree that the defendant's base offense level be calculated at 30 pursuant to USSG §§ 2D1.8(a) and 1B1.3. The United States and the defendant also stipulate and agree that, pursuant to USSG § 2D1.”
In Re Sealed Case (2009)
“Relying on the 2005 edition of the United States Sentencing Commission Guidelines Manual, the PSR prepared by the probation office calculated appellant's base offense level under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.8(a), the section of the Guidelines that governs convictions for maintaining a drug…”
United States v. James Henry Hunt (2007)
“U.S.S.G. § 2D1.8 cmt. n. 1 (1998). The district court concluded that subsection (a)(2) did not apply in this case.”
United States v. Oscar Marnell St. Julian, Ii, A/K/A Davion Walker (1990)
“8, “Renting or Managing a Drug Establishment,” directs the sentencing court to increase the offense level by two “[i]f a firearm or other dangerous weapon was possessed during commission of the offense_” U.S.S.G. § lB1.3(a)(l) directs sentencing courts to consider, in…”
— U.S.S.G. §2D1.8(a)(1) — 5 cases
In Re Sealed Case (2009)
“Relying on the 2005 edition of the United States Sentencing Commission Guidelines Manual, the PSR prepared by the probation office calculated appellant's base offense level under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.8(a), the section of the Guidelines that governs convictions for maintaining a drug…”
United States v. Grant (2010)
— U.S.S.G. §2D1.8(a)(2) — 31 cases
In Re Sealed Case (2009)
“Relying on the 2005 edition of the United States Sentencing Commission Guidelines Manual, the PSR prepared by the probation office calculated appellant's base offense level under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.8(a), the section of the Guidelines that governs convictions for maintaining a drug…”
United States v. Alfred Andre Dickerson (1999)
“U.S.S.G. § 2D1.8 comment. (n.l). Of the few published cases discussing § 2D1.”
United States v. James Henry Hunt (2007)
“U.S.S.G. § 2D1.8 cmt. n. 1 (1998). The district court concluded that subsection (a)(2) did not apply in this case.”
United States v. Levi Culps (2002)
“A defendant convicted of maintaining a drug house is sentenced pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2D1.8, which provides that a defendant is sentenced for the amount of drugs involved in the underlying offenses that took place at the drug house as calculated pursuant to U.”
United States v. Patch (2021)
“Withal, USSG §2D1.8(a), quoted above, bifurcates the calculation of the BOL in such cases.”
— U.S.S.G. §2D1.8(a)(l) — 9 cases
In Re Sealed Case (2009)
“Relying on the 2005 edition of the United States Sentencing Commission Guidelines Manual, the PSR prepared by the probation office calculated appellant's base offense level under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.8(a), the section of the Guidelines that governs convictions for maintaining a drug…”
United States v. Eddie Lee Cabbell, United States of America v. Loren Martin Craig, Also Known as Marty Cabbell (1994)
“In support of this position, Craig asserts that the jury did not reach a unanimous agreement on whether Craig participated in the distribution of drugs or used a communication facility to do so; rather it simply found that Craig had maintained premises for the distribution of…”
United States v. Howard Eugene Leasure (2003)
“Principally at issue is whether the government bears the burden of proving at sentencing that a convicted narcotics laboratory operator actually participated in the underlying drug offense under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.8. Leasure contends that imposing that burden upon the defendant is…”
United States v. Taylor (1996)
United States v. Yahnke (2003)
“Yahnke originally contended that his adjusted offense level should be 16, and his total offense level should consequently be 13, based on his contention that he is entitled to a four-level reduction pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2D1.8(a)(2), because he had no “participation” in the…”
— U.S.S.G. §2D1.8(b) — 1 case
— U.S.S.G. §2D1.8(b)(l) — 3 cases
United States v. Oscar Marnell St. Julian, Ii, A/K/A Davion Walker (1990)
“8, “Renting or Managing a Drug Establishment,” directs the sentencing court to increase the offense level by two “[i]f a firearm or other dangerous weapon was possessed during commission of the offense_” U.S.S.G. § lB1.3(a)(l) directs sentencing courts to consider, in…”
United States v. Hued (2004)
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.