United States v. Shane

── United States v. Shane ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit Date: May 28, 2026 Category: General Appellate Case: 25-8070 Document: 36-1 Date Filed: 05/28/2026 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT May 28, 2026 _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. No. 25-8070 (D.C. No. 2:25-CR-00016-SWS-1) JADE SHANE, (D. Wyo.) Defendant - Appellant. _________________________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT * _________________________________ Before MATHESON, MORITZ, and FEDERICO, Circuit Judges. _________________________________ Jade Shane appeals his 168-month prison sentence for methamphetamine distribution, arguing the district court erred by increasing his offense level under Section 2D1.1(b)(12) of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines because he maintained a premises for drug distribution. We have jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a) and 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm. After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined * unanimously to honor the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.  Appellate Case: 25-8070 Document: 36-1 Date Filed: 05/28/2026 Page: 2 I. BACKGROUND Mr. Shane pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine in violation of, 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A). Based on evidence described below, the district court then applied § 2D1.1(b)(12) to increase his advisory sentencing range under the Guidelines. A. Section 2D1.1(b)(12) Section 2D1.1(b)(12) provides: “If the defendant maintained a premises for the purpose of manufacturing or distributing a controlled substance, increase [the offense level] by 2 levels.” The Guidelines do not define the term “maintained,” but the Sentencing Commission’s “authoritative” commentary instructs that “‘[a]mong the factors the court should consider in determining whether the defendant “maintained” the premises are (A) whether the defendant held a possessory interest in (e.g., owned or rented) the premises and (B) the extent to which the defendant controlled access to, or activities at, the premises.’” United States v. Day, 135 F. 4th 1248, 1252 (10th Cir. 2025) (quoting § 2D1.1 cmt. n.17). Courts also consider “‘acts evidencing such matters as control, duration, acquisition of the site, renting or furnishing the site, repairing the site, supervising, protecting, supplying the food to those at the site, and continuity.’” Id. at 1252–53 (brackets omitted) (quoting United States v. Verners, 53 F.3d 291, 296 (10th Cir. 1995)). “[W]here the place in question is a residence, the defendant must have a substantial connection to the home and must be more than a casual visitor.” Verners, 2  Appellate Case: 25