A Definition Out of Reach: Clarifying Constructive Possession in Federal Sentencing Guideline 2D1.1(b)(1)

• Author: Ellen E. Cranberg
• Position: J.D. Candidate, The University of Iowa College of Law, 2020; B.A, The University of Iowa College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, 2016
• Pages: 1799-1826

1799

A Definition Out of Reach:

Clarifying Constructive Possession

in Federal Sentencing Guideline

2D1.1(b)(1)

Ellen E. Cranberg*

ABSTRACT: The United States Sentencing Guidelines created a novel, more

uniform calculation for sentencing federal criminal offenders. The complex

system, however, is not without its flaws. Section 2D1.1(b)(1) of the

Sentencing Guidelines provides for a two-level increase in the specific offense

level if a dangerous weapon (including a firearm) is possessed in connection

with a drug trafficking offense. “Possession” in this provision includes

constructive possession. Federal Circuits differ greatly on the standard they

use to define “constructive possession,” leading to disproportionate and

unequal sentences across the country. A universal interpretation of

constructive possession that requires the weapon to be both temporally and

spatially proximate to the defendant and the drug activity fits most closely

with what the Sentencing Commission intended the two-level increase to

punish. The Sentencing Commission intended a higher sentence to punish

the increased danger an offender creates in possessing a dangerous weapon

with drug activity, and increased danger only arises from a dangerous

weapon if the weapon is close enough to the offender for him or her to use it

during the course of drug activity. Aligning the provision’s application with

what the Sentencing Commission intended would create more propor tionate,

uniform punishment nationwide than the wide range of different

interpretations used across the federal judiciary now.

I.INTRODUCTION ........................................................................... 1800

II. HISTORY AND MECHANICS OF THE GUIDELINES .......................... 1802

A.THE SENTENCING REFORM ACT ............................................. 1803

*

J.D. Candidate, The University of Iowa College of Law, 2020; B.A, The University of

Iowa College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, 2016. Many thanks to Professor Alison Guernsey for

her infallible red pen, and to Delta Airlines for stranding her in an airport on a cold December

night with nothing to read but this Note.

1800 IOWA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 105:1799

B.THE UNITED STATES SENTENCING COMMISSION AND

ITS AIMS ............................................................................... 1804

C.MECHANICS OF THE GUIDELINES AND SECTION

2D1.1(B)(1) ......................................................................... 1806

1.Specific Offense Level ................................................. 1808

2.Criminal History Category .......................................... 1810

3.Applying the Guidelines—An Example .................... 1811

4.U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual Section

2D1.1(b)(1) and Constructive Possession ................ 1812

III.ANALYSIS ..................................................................................... 1813

A.THE VARYING STANDARDS OF INTERPRETING

CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION ................................................... 1814

B.STANDARDS OF CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION THAT DO NOT

REQUIRE TEMPORAL AND SPATIAL PROXIMITY ARE

INCONSISTENT WITH THE SENTENCING COMMISSION’S

INTENT ................................................................................. 1816

1.The Sentencing Commission Intended

Section 2D1.1(b)(1) to Only Punish Instances

of Constructive Possession that Represent an

Increased Danger ........................................................ 1816

2.Both the “Clearly Improbable” and “Dominion

and Control” Tests are Inconsistent with the

Sentencing Commission’s Intent ............................... 1817

C.APPLYING INTERPRETATIONS OF CONSTRUCTIVE

POSSESSION THAT ARE INCONSISTENT WITH WHAT THE

SENTENCING COMMISSION INTENDED CREATES

DISPROPORTIONATE AND INCONSISTENT PUNISHMENT ............ 1820

1.Disproportionality in the Sentence Imposed ............ 1820

2.Disproportionality in Cost .......................................... 1821

3.Inconsistency ............................................................... 1822

IV. REFORMING CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION IN

SECTION 2D1.1(B)(1) ................................................................ 1823

A.BALANCING BETWEEN CLARITY/EASE OF ADMINISTRATION

AND THOROUGH GUIDANCE ................................................... 1823

B.ADOPTING THE “PROXIMITY” STANDARD ................................ 1824

V.CONCLUSION .............................................................................. 1825

I. INTRODUCTION

The United States Federal Sentencing Guidelines (“Guidelines” or

“Sentencing Guidelines”) reformed federal sentencing law to make