USA v. Johnnie Hill Callahan, III

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________

No. 19-13330
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________

D.C. Docket No. 3:18-cr-00108-MCR-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

JOHNNIE HILL CALLAHAN, III,

Defendant - Appellant.
________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Florida
________________________
(June 25, 2020)

Before GRANT, LUCK and BLACK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:
Case: 19-13330 Date Filed: 06/25/2020 Page: 1 of 3

2

Johnnie Hill Callahan, III appeals his 240-month sentence for conspiracy to
distribute and possess with intent to distribute a controlled substance, two counts of
distribution of a controlled substance, distribution of and possession with intent to
distribute a controlled substance, possession with intent to distribute a controlled
substance, possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, and
possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. Callahan asserts the district court
clearly erred when it applied a two-level sentence enhancement because it found
that he maintained a premises for the purpose of distributing drugs. After review,
1

we affirm the district court.
Section 2D1.1(b)(12) of the Guidelines adds a two-level enhancement “[i]f
the defendant maintained a premises for the purpose of manufacturing or
distributing a controlled substance,” including storage of a controlled substance for
the purposes of distribution. U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(12) & comment. (n.17).
Commentary to § 2D1.1(b)(12) provides that the court should consider “whether
the defendant held a possessory interest in (e.g., owned or rented) the premises”
and “the extent to which the defendant controlled access to, or activities at, the
premises.” Id. § 2D1.1, comment. (n.17).

1
Where the district court determines that a defendant maintained a property for the
manufacture or distribution of drugs, we review that determination as a finding of fact under the
clear error standard. United States v. George, 872 F.3d 1197, 1205 (11th Cir. 2017). We will
not reverse such a finding unless we are left with the “definite and firm conviction that a mistake
has been committed.” United States v. Crawford, 407 F.3d 1174, 1177 (11th Cir. 2005).

Case: 19-13330 Date Filed: 06/25/2020 Page: 2 of 3

3

The district court did not clearly err when it found Callahan maintained a
property to manufacture or distribute drugs. The undisputed facts confirm that
Callahan had access to the Tellus storage unit leased by his sister as he used that
unit to conduct a drug transaction. Callahan then moved his drugs from the Tellus
storage unit to the Oakdale storage unit, which T.J. had leased. Soon after
switching storage units, Callahan went to the Oakdale facility on two separate
occasions on the same day, once to remove a bag and another time to drop off two
bags. In addition, Callahan did not dispute that the drugs, gun, and kilo press
found in the storage unit belonged to him. The fact the storage units were leased
by K.D. and T.J., while relevant, is not dispositive as Callahan had access to the
storage facilities. U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(12) & comment. (n.17). Thus, the district
court did not clearly err when it applied the two-level enhancement as the
undisputed facts indicate Callahan maintained control of and had access to the
storage facilities he used to distribute his drugs. See United States v. George, 872
F.3d 1197, 1205 (11th Cir. 2017). Accordingly, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.
Case: 19-13330 Date Filed: 06/25/2020 Page: 3 of 3