US v. James Winburn
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:15-cr-00098-LCB-3 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. .. [15-4655]
Pg: 1 of 4
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
JAMES ALAN WINBURN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro.
Loretta C. Biggs,
District Judge. (1:15-cr-00098-LCB-3)
January 10, 2017
January 12, 2017
Before MOTZ and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ames C. Chamberlin, LAW OFFICES OF AMES C. CHAMBERLIN,
Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant.
Ripley Rand, United
States Attorney, Terry M. Meinecke, Assistant United States
Attorney, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 4
agreement, to conspiracy to distribute heroin, in violation of
21 U.S.C. §§ 841(b)(1)(C), 846 (2012).
The district court found
maintaining a premises for the purpose of distributing illegal
enhancement was not appropriate.
findings for clear error.”
Finding no error, we affirm.
United States v. White, 771 F.3d
“[W]e can find clear error only if, on the
conviction that a mistake has been committed.”
United States v.
internal quotation marks omitted).
premises (i.e. a building, room, or enclosure) for the purpose
including storage of a controlled substance for the purpose of
Pg: 3 of 4
substance need not be the sole purpose for which the premises
was maintained, but must be one of the defendant’s primary or
principal uses for the premises.”
As Winburn acknowledges,
it is possible for a personal residence to have a second primary
purpose of drug distribution.
United States v. Sanchez, 710
contemplates that premises can have more than one principal use.
. . .
[T]he proper inquiry is whether the drug transactions
were a second primary use of the premises or were instead merely
a collateral use.”), vacated on other grounds, 134 S. Ct. 146
Winburn does not dispute that he maintained the subject
Likewise, he does not dispute the evidence that he
purchased four to six grams of heroin daily for several months
prior to the search of his residence, that he sold heroin from
the residence at least three times in the two months prior to
his arrest, and that, upon his arrest at the residence, law
enforcement officers recovered eight bags of heroin from his
person and drug paraphernalia such as digital scales, razors,
distribution was one of the primary purposes of the residence.
Pg: 4 of 4
We conclude that the district court did not clearly err in
finding by a preponderance of the evidence that these facts were
sufficient to merit application of the enhancement.
States v. Miller, 698 F.3d 699, 702-03, 706-07 (8th Cir. 2012)
(affirming enhancement where defendant “actively participat[ed]
methamphetamine purchases on other occasions”).
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?