United States v. Tekola

── United States v. Tekola ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Date: May 20, 2026 Category: General FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 24-5467 D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellee, 2:22-cr-00608- SPG-1 v. ORDER AND ISAAC TEKOLA, AMENDED OPINION Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Sherilyn Peace Garnett, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted February 9, 2026 Pasadena, California Filed March 9, 2026 Amended May 20, 2026 Before: John B. Owens, Lawrence VanDyke, and Holly A. Thomas, Circuit Judges. Order; Opinion by Judge Owens 2 USA V. TEKOLA SUMMARY * Criminal Law The panel affirmed Isaac Tekola’s sentence for possession with intent to distribute fentanyl, methamphetamine, and Alprazolam in a case in which the district court imposed an enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(12) for maintaining a premises for the purpose of manufacturing or distributing a controlled substance. Commentary to the Sentencing Guidelines instructs that the enhancement applies to a defendant “who knowingly maintains 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 (emphasis added). “Manufacturing or distributing a controlled 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, rather than one of the defendant’s incidental or collateral uses for the premises.” Id. (emphasis added). Tekola challenged the district court’s finding that he maintained his apartment “for the purpose of manufacturing or distributing” drugs, suggesting that because the apartment was his primary residence, drug trafficking was not a “primary or principal” use of the apartment. * This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.  USA V. TEKOLA 3 The panel rejected this argument, which runs counter to the history and purpose of § 2D1.1(b)(12). Following sister circuits in affirming the application of the enhancement where a defendant uses his home for substantial drug trafficking activity, the panel held that it was not an abuse of discretion for the district court to determine that drug trafficking was a “primary or principal use” of the residence, even without explicitly comparing the frequency of Tekola’s “drug use” to his “residential use” of the property, where overwhelming evidence suggests that Tekola used his apartment as the central hub for his drug-trafficking business. COUNSEL Kellye Ng (argued) and Declan T. Conroy, Assistant United States Attorneys, Violent & Organized Crime and Transnational Organized Crime Sections; Christina T. Shay, Assistant United States Attorney, Chief, Criminal Division; Bilal A. Essayli, United States Attorney, Office of the United States Attorney, United States Department of Justice, Los Angeles, California; for Plaintiff-Appellee. Sonam A. H. Henderson (argued), Deputy Federal Public Defender; Cuauhtémoc Ortega, Federal Public Defender, Office of the Federal Public Defender, Los Angeles, California; for Defendant-Appellant. 4 USA V. TEKOLA ORDER