United States of America v. Jeffrey Leon Carpenter

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 23-2522
___________________________
United States of America
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Jeffrey Leon Carpenter
Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Southern District of Iowa - Eastern
____________
Submitted: April 12, 2024
Filed: June 10, 2024
[Unpublished]
____________
Before LOKEN, MELLOY, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Jeffrey Carpenter pleaded guilty to one count of conspiring to distribute
methamphetamine, 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), 846, and two counts of
distributing methamphetamine, § 841(a)(1), (b)(1). After overruling his objection to

-- 1 of 3 --

-2-
a sentencing enhancement for maintaining a drug premises, the district court1
imposed a bottom-of-the-Guidelines sentence of 360 months in prison. Carpenter
appeals, challenging the enhancement and arguing that his sentence is substantively
unreasonable.
The district court added two offense levels because Carpenter “maintained a
premises for the purpose of manufacturing or distributing a controlled substance,”
“including storage of a controlled substance for the purpose of distribution.”
U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(12) & cmt. n.17. Carpenter argues that the district court clearly
erred by finding that one of the “primary or principal uses” of his home was storing
and distributing drugs. See § 2D1.1 cmt. n.17; United States v. Miller, 698 F.3d
699, 705 (8th Cir. 2012) (standard of review). We disagree. At sentencing, a
detective testified that the methamphetamine purchased in two controlled buys came
from Carpenter’s home and that Carpenter had transported grocery bags of the drug
from his home to a coconspirator. Plus, two coconspirators named Carpenter as their
supplier. So the record supports the court’s finding that a principal use of his home
was storing drugs for later distribution. See United States v. Hernandez Lopez, 24
F.4th 1205, 1208 (8th Cir. 2022) (upholding enhancement where defendant stored
drugs and prepared them for distribution in his basement); Miller, 698 F.3d at 707
(a family home is a drug premises when the defendant uses it “for the purpose of
substantial drug-trafficking activities”).
Carpenter also argues that his bottom-of-the-Guidelines sentence is
substantively unreasonable because the district court did not appropriately consider
the need to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(6). We
review a sentence’s substantive reasonableness for abuse of discretion. United
States v. John, 27 F.4th 644, 651 (8th Cir. 2022).
1 The Honorable Stephanie M. Rose, Chief Judge, United States District Court
for the Southern District of Iowa.

-- 2 of 3 --

-3-
When a district court “correctly calculates and carefully reviews the
Guidelines range,” like here, it “necessarily gives significant weight and
consideration to the need to avoid the unwarranted disparity that the Sentencing
Commission sought to prevent through its setting of the Guidelines ranges.” United
States v. Bueno, 549 F.3d 1176, 1181 (8th Cir. 2008). And what matters are
unwarranted disparities. Because Carpenter had a “pretty alarming” history of
“extreme violence,” including domestic abuse and assaulting police officers, the
district court properly found that there were “aggravating circumstances that were
not adequately taken into account by a shorter term of imprisonment.” See United
States v. Lovato, 868 F.3d 681, 684 (8th Cir. 2017).
We affirm the district court’s judgment.
______________________________

-- 3 of 3 --