Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States v. Castetter

United States District Court, N.D. Indiana, Fort Wayne Division

December 18, 2016

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
COREY S. CASTETTER

          OPINION AND ORDER

          THERESA L. SPRINGMANN JUDGE

         The Defendant, Corey S. Castetter, pled guilty to possession with intent to distribute a Schedule II controlled substance, methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). The probation officer drafted a Presentence Investigation Report (PSR) in preparation for sentencing. The Court now resolves the Defendant's objections to the PSR.

         BACKGROUND

         On September 4, 2014, law enforcement officers conducted a traffic stop of a vehicle in Michigan, during which officers located four ounces of crystal methamphetamine. Pursuant to a search warrant authorized by a state magistrate in Michigan, this vehicle had been fitted with a GPS unit. According to information gathered from the GPS unit, on August 30, 2014, this vehicle arrived at the Defendant's residence, located at 6174 West Noe Street, Kimmel, Indiana. The vehicle arrived at the Defendant's residence at about 12:48 PM, and stayed for about 30 minutes before returning to Michigan. An informant told Michigan authorities that he knew the vehicle's driver had driven to Kimmell, Indiana, and returned to Michigan with methamphetamine. On September 4, 2014, GPS data showed that the vehicle arrived at the Defendant's residence at about 12:10 PM, and stayed for about 1 hour and 22 minutes before returning to Michigan. The vehicle made no significant stops before officers executed the search warrant on the vehicle in Michigan.

         After the Michigan authorities located the four ounces of crystal methamphetamine in the vehicle, Task Force Officer (TFO) Sean Lundy of the Drug Enforcement Agency obtained and executed a state search warrant of the Defendant's residence. This also occurred on September 4, 2014. The Defendant and his adult son were in the residence when the warrant was executed. The Defendant's residence is a one-story house with a basement. In the house, officers located surveillance video equipment that was in a box, including infrared equipment for night vision. A closet in the Defendant's bedroom contained a Winchester, .30-30 caliber, lever-action, high-powered rifle. Although the rifle was stored in a leather case, TFO Lundy testified that it was not “kept in very good condition” and was not being kept in a manner consistent with being a collector's item. (Sentencing Evidentiary Hr'g Tr. 55:17, Mar. 14, 2016.) The officers also found a semi-automatic shotgun leaning against a wall in the corner of a room that connected the Defendant's bedroom with the living room and kitchen area. TFO Lundy testified that one of these firearms was loaded and believed to the best of his knowledge that the shotgun was loaded. A one-gallon Ziploc bag containing a distribution amount of synthetic marijuana or “spice” was also found in a breezeway near the kitchen that led to the basement's entrance, meaning that the shotgun and the bag of synthetic marijuana were on opposite ends of the house.

         In the basement, there was a workbench area and an open crawl space filled with dirt. In the workbench area, the officers found about an ounce of crystal methamphetamine that was on top of some storage containers. Further, a digital scale was stored above the workbench amid the floor joists, along with a spoon on the work table that contained a liquified drug substance. There was also a “pre-loaded” syringe that contained narcotics, as well as other syringes. (Id. 24:15.) In addition to the digital scale, the officers located a triple-beam style scale. In the crawl space, the officers saw digging tools and a piece of cardboard covering an area of dirt that appeared freshly disturbed based on its texture. The officers also saw a plastic bag partially sticking out from the dirt. When the officers retrieved the bag, they located bundles of United States currency that were tied together with new rubber bands. A false wall in the basement near the stairs contained envelopes with approximately $1, 000 in each, and many of those envelopes had numbers on them that “would be . . . consistent with the price of the ounces of methamphetamines.” (Id. 35:4-16.) A reliable drug dog later alerted to the presence of drugs on the money, which TFO Lundy testified was an indication that “the money there or the currency has been, in the past . . . involved in the vicinity or close with narcotics.” (Id. 53:5-13.) The officers recovered about $62, 090 in cash from the Defendant's basement, which was buried in the dirt or hidden behind a wall. The parties have stipulated that $49, 050 of this money is drug money.[1]

         The Defendant was charged with possession with intent to distribute a Schedule II controlled substance, methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (Count 1); maintaining drug-involved premises, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 856(a)(2) (Count 2); and possession of a controlled substance, including methamphetamine, a Schedule II controlled substance, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 844 (Count 3). On August 20, 2015, the Defendant entered a plea of guilty to Count 1 of the Indictment [ECF No. 16] Pursuant to the terms of the Plea Agreement [ECF No. 38], the Government agreed to dismiss Counts 2 and 3 of the Indictment at the time of sentencing.

         The PSR includes a two-level enhancement to the base offense level on grounds that the Defendant possessed “a dangerous weapon (including a firearm).” U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1). The base offense level was also increased by two levels for maintaining a premises for the purpose of manufacturing or distributing a controlled substance. Id. § 2D1.1(b)(12). The Defendant objected to both of these enhancements. In the First Addendum to the PSR [ECF No. 52], the probation officer summarized the Defendant's position that the dangerous weapon enhancement is inappropriate because the Defendant lived in a rural setting and both he and his son are hunters. Further, both weapons were identified as unloaded hunting rifles that were secured in gun cases far from the drugs in the house. The Government disagreed with the Defendant's description of the facts. After reviewing the offense conduct, investigative documents (including photographs), and speaking with the case agent, the probation officer listed several facts supporting the enhancement and concluded the enhancement was justified. Regarding the drug premises enhancement, the Defendant asserted that there was a lack of evidence to support the enhancement, particularly addressing the frequency of drug related purposes at the residence. The Government principally responded that the facts were legally sufficient to support the enhancement, and the probation officer determined the enhancement was justified after reviewing the relevant information. The Court scheduled an evidentiary hearing to address the objections.

         Following the evidentiary hearing, the Defendant maintained his position that both enhancements are unsupported by the case's facts and the applicable law. The Court will address each objection in turn, and for the reasons stated below, finds that both enhancements were appropriately applied.

         ANALYSIS

         A. Gun Enhancement

         Section 2D.1.1(b)(1) of the United States Sentencing Guidelines Manual allows for a two-level increase in the base offense level ‘if a dangerous weapon (including a firearm) was possessed.” The Commentary to this enhancement states that

The enhancement for weapon possession . . . reflects the increased danger of violence when drug traffickers possess weapons. The enhancement should be applied if the weapon was present, unless it is clearly improbable that the weapon was connected with the offense. For example, the enhancement would not be applied if the defendant, arrested at the defendant's residence, had an unloaded hunting rifle in the closet.

U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1 cmt. n.11(A). The Seventh Circuit has “repeatedly held that ‘the Government bears the initial burden of demonstrating [by a preponderance of the evidence] that the defendant possessed a weapon in a place where drugs were present, ' and that ‘once the Government meets its burden, the defendant must demonstrate that it was clearly improbable that the weapon was connected to the offense.'” United States v. Bjorkman, 270 F.3d 482, 492 (7th Cir. 2001) (first quoting United States v. Booker, 248 F.3d 683, 689 (7th Cir. 2001); then United States v. Rollins, 544 F.3d 820, 837 (7th Cir. 2008). To meet its burden, the Government only needs to prove that “the weapon was possessed during the offense, ” Rollins, 544 F.3d at 837, and possession of the weapon may be actual or ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.