Seventh Circuit· 3/6/2013

United States v. Edwin Sanchez

Citations

710 F.3d 724
2013 WL 819377
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 4647

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

considering that defendant “used his residence not only for the drop-off, storage, and pick-up of drugs, but also as a secure place to settle the financials”
reasoning that because “Sanchez had no legitimate job and no source of income beyond his drug sales,” “the illicit transactions occurring at the premises were signifi- cant—in quantity, in scope, and in importance to Sanchez’s livelihood”
storing up to 40 kilograms of cocaine at a time and using his residence “as a secure place to settle the financials”
applying the drug-house enhancement even though “drugs were not kept [in the family home] for very long and [the defendant] primarily used the home as a residence” because the scope of the drug-related áctivities was otherwise significant
“[T]he enhancement clearly 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.”
no error in not considering not-yet-imposed sentence of co-defendant

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Kanne, Tinder, Hamilton

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

14 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

31 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.