NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION File Name: 26a0137n.06
Case No. 25-3144
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT FILED Mar 13, 2026 KELLY L. STEPHENS, Clerk ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) Plaintiff-Appellee, ) ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED ) STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR v. ) THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ) OHIO KEVIN WILLIE CARTER, ) Defendant-Appellant. ) OPINION )
Before: STRANCH, READLER, and BLOOMEKATZ, Circuit Judges.
READLER, Circuit Judge. Following charges for violating a host of federal drug
trafficking, money laundering, gun, and racketeering laws, Kevin Willie Carter pleaded guilty to
five counts, including a drug conspiracy charge. At sentencing, the U.S. Probation Office
recommended two Guidelines enhancements: one for Carter’s leadership role in the conspiracy,
and another for Carter having maintained a premises for drug trafficking. Over Carter’s objection,
the district court applied both enhancements and ultimately sentenced Carter to 264 months of
imprisonment. On appeal, Carter challenges the two enhancements that informed his Guidelines
range. Seeing no error, we affirm.
I.
While wiretapping a suspected fentanyl supplier’s cell phone, FBI agents overheard parties
discussing a drug transaction. One of those parties was Kevin Carter. An investigation into Carter
revealed that he was a central figure in an elaborate drug trafficking operation stretching from No. 25-3144, United States v. Carter
Ohio to Arizona. In this capacity, Carter arranged for his associates to purchase narcotics, which
Carter would later sell to other dealers. As the investigation progressed, officers searched Carter’s
home and a music studio he controlled. In all, officers unearthed a significant array of narcotics,
thousands of dollars in cash, firearms, nine cell phones, and other drug trafficking paraphernalia.
These efforts culminated in a grand jury returning a 103-count indictment against Carter and 21
co-defendants.
Carter eventually agreed to plead guilty to five counts, including a charge for conspiring
with his co-defendants to distribute cocaine, fentanyl, methamphetamine, heroin, PCP, and
marijuana. In his plea agreement, Carter accepted a factual summary of his crimes, which
described his role in directing and organizing the conspiracy. Prior to sentencing, the U.S.
Probation Office prepared a presentence report (or PSR) detailing Carter’s offenses and criminal
history, all of which was used to calculate an advisory Guidelines range. The PSR recommended
applying a four-level, aggravating role enhancement found at United States Sentencing Guidelines
Manual § 3B1.1(a) on the grounds that Carter was the organizer or leader of a criminal activity
involving five or more participants or that was otherwise extensive. The PSR also suggested
adding two points to Carter’s base offense level score because he maintained a premises for the
purpose of manufacturing or distributing a controlled substance within the meaning of United
States Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2D1.1(b)(12). In the end, probation calculated a
Guidelines range of 360 months to life. While Carter never disputed the underlying facts detailed
in the PSR, he did challenge whether those facts supported the respective leadership and premises
enhancements. Over Carter’s objections, the district court agreed with the PSR’s calculations and,
varying downward, sentenced Carter to a total of 264 months in prison. This appeal, which echoes
Carter’s challenges in district court, followed.
2 No. 25-3144, United States v. Carter
II.
Begin with the aggravating role enhancement. Guidelines § 3B1.1(a) enhances a
defendant’s base offense level by four points “[i]f the defendant was an organizer or leader of a
criminal activity that involved five or more participants or was otherwise extensive.” U.S. Sent’g
Guidelines Manual § 3B1.1(a) (U.S. Sent’g Comm’n 2024). Carter takes issue with the district
court’s conclusion that he was an “organizer or leader” of the criminal activity. To so qualify,
Carter need only “be a leader of one or more other participants” within the activity. United States
v. Taylor, 85 F.4th 386, 390 (6th Cir. 2023) (citation modified). And that leadership may be
reflected in any number of ways, including by exercising decisionmaking authority, recruiting
accomplices, receiving a large share of the profits, being instrumental in planning the crime, or
exercising control or authority over accomplices. See United States v. Vasquez, 560 F.3d 461, 473
(6th Cir. 2009). Given the “fact-intensive” nature of the inquiry, we review the district court’s
decision to grant a leadership enhancement “deferentially.” United States v. Minter, 80 F.4th 753,
758 (6th Cir. 2023).
Against this backdrop, we see no error in the district court’s determination. Consider the
undisputed facts found in Carter’s plea agreement and PSR, which together reveal numerous
examples of Carter overseeing his co-conspirators by having them test drugs, rent vehicles,
distribute narcotics, or retrieve drug profits on his behalf. In one instance, Carter “request[ed]”
that two individuals, including his girlfriend, Antonesha Dixon, take a Greyhound bus to Phoenix
to pick up fentanyl pills to bring back to Ohio. See PSR, R. 527, PageID#3916, 3919. Once the
pair did so, Carter “directed” Dixon to wire $2,000 to the fentanyl supplier for more pills. See
Plea Agreement, R. 507, PageID#3552. In another instance, Carter “had” a drug courier “provide”
him with a drone to deliver narcotics to an inmate at an Ohio state prison. See PSR, R. 527,
3 No. 25-3144, United States v. Carter
PageID#3916, 3920. All told, Carter exercised decisionmaking authority, was key in planning the
conspiracy, and repeatedly directed the actions of several co-conspirators. See Vasquez, 560 F.3d
at 473. Accordingly, the district court did not err in concluding that the record was “replete” with
examples to support the enhancement. Sentencing Tr., R. 545, PageID#4149.
Resisting this conclusion, Carter asserts that there is no evidence that he personally
benefited from the transactions he oversaw. Carter’s argument suffers from a questionable factual
premise—recall that investigators unearthed thousands of dollars at Carter’s residence and
recording studio. But more than that, it is legally flawed. We agree with Carter that evidence that
a defendant obtained a large share of the fruits of the crime can help support the aggravating role
enhancement. See, e.g., United States v. Araiza, 643 F. App’x 524, 526 (6th Cir. 2016). But that
is just one of many factors relevant to the inquiry, and a district court need not find each factor
applicable to warrant the enhancement. See United States v. Castilla–Lugo, 699 F.3d 454, 460
(6th Cir. 2012) (citing United States v. Gates, 461 F.3d 703, 709 (6th Cir. 2006)). With ample
evidence showing Carter was directing the actions of at least one individual to further the aims of
the extensive drug conspiracy, no error occurred in applying the four-point enhancement. See
Taylor, 85 F.4th at 390.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION File Name: 26a0137n.06
Case No. 25-3144
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT FILED Mar 13, 2026 KELLY L. STEPHENS, Clerk ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) Plaintiff-Appellee, ) ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED ) STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR v. ) THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ) OHIO KEVIN WILLIE CARTER, ) Defendant-Appellant. ) OPINION )
Before: STRANCH, READLER, and BLOOMEKATZ, Circuit Judges.
READLER, Circuit Judge. Following charges for violating a host of federal drug
trafficking, money laundering, gun, and racketeering laws, Kevin Willie Carter pleaded guilty to
five counts, including a drug conspiracy charge. At sentencing, the U.S. Probation Office
recommended two Guidelines enhancements: one for Carter’s leadership role in the conspiracy,
and another for Carter having maintained a premises for drug trafficking. Over Carter’s objection,
the district court applied both enhancements and ultimately sentenced Carter to 264 months of
imprisonment. On appeal, Carter challenges the two enhancements that informed his Guidelines
range. Seeing no error, we affirm.
I.
While wiretapping a suspected fentanyl supplier’s cell phone, FBI agents overheard parties
discussing a drug transaction. One of those parties was Kevin Carter. An investigation into Carter
revealed that he was a central figure in an elaborate drug trafficking operation stretching from No. 25-3144, United States v. Carter
Ohio to Arizona. In this capacity, Carter arranged for his associates to purchase narcotics, which
Carter would later sell to other dealers. As the investigation progressed, officers searched Carter’s
home and a music studio he controlled. In all, officers unearthed a significant array of narcotics,
thousands of dollars in cash, firearms, nine cell phones, and other drug trafficking paraphernalia.
These efforts culminated in a grand jury returning a 103-count indictment against Carter and 21
co-defendants.
Carter eventually agreed to plead guilty to five counts, including a charge for conspiring
with his co-defendants to distribute cocaine, fentanyl, methamphetamine, heroin, PCP, and
marijuana. In his plea agreement, Carter accepted a factual summary of his crimes, which
described his role in directing and organizing the conspiracy. Prior to sentencing, the U.S.
Probation Office prepared a presentence report (or PSR) detailing Carter’s offenses and criminal
history, all of which was used to calculate an advisory Guidelines range. The PSR recommended
applying a four-level, aggravating role enhancement found at United States Sentencing Guidelines
Manual § 3B1.1(a) on the grounds that Carter was the organizer or leader of a criminal activity
involving five or more participants or that was otherwise extensive. The PSR also suggested
adding two points to Carter’s base offense level score because he maintained a premises for the
purpose of manufacturing or distributing a controlled substance within the meaning of United
States Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2D1.1(b)(12). In the end, probation calculated a
Guidelines range of 360 months to life. While Carter never disputed the underlying facts detailed
in the PSR, he did challenge whether those facts supported the respective leadership and premises
enhancements. Over Carter’s objections, the district court agreed with the PSR’s calculations and,
varying downward, sentenced Carter to a total of 264 months in prison. This appeal, which echoes
Carter’s challenges in district court, followed.
2 No. 25-3144, United States v. Carter
II.
Begin with the aggravating role enhancement. Guidelines § 3B1.1(a) enhances a
defendant’s base offense level by four points “[i]f the defendant was an organizer or leader of a
criminal activity that involved five or more participants or was otherwise extensive.” U.S. Sent’g
Guidelines Manual § 3B1.1(a) (U.S. Sent’g Comm’n 2024). Carter takes issue with the district
court’s conclusion that he was an “organizer or leader” of the criminal activity. To so qualify,
Carter need only “be a leader of one or more other participants” within the activity. United States
v. Taylor, 85 F.4th 386, 390 (6th Cir. 2023) (citation modified). And that leadership may be
reflected in any number of ways, including by exercising decisionmaking authority, recruiting
accomplices, receiving a large share of the profits, being instrumental in planning the crime, or
exercising control or authority over accomplices. See United States v. Vasquez, 560 F.3d 461, 473
(6th Cir. 2009). Given the “fact-intensive” nature of the inquiry, we review the district court’s
decision to grant a leadership enhancement “deferentially.” United States v. Minter, 80 F.4th 753,
758 (6th Cir. 2023).
Against this backdrop, we see no error in the district court’s determination. Consider the
undisputed facts found in Carter’s plea agreement and PSR, which together reveal numerous
examples of Carter overseeing his co-conspirators by having them test drugs, rent vehicles,
distribute narcotics, or retrieve drug profits on his behalf. In one instance, Carter “request[ed]”
that two individuals, including his girlfriend, Antonesha Dixon, take a Greyhound bus to Phoenix
to pick up fentanyl pills to bring back to Ohio. See PSR, R. 527, PageID#3916, 3919. Once the
pair did so, Carter “directed” Dixon to wire $2,000 to the fentanyl supplier for more pills. See
Plea Agreement, R. 507, PageID#3552. In another instance, Carter “had” a drug courier “provide”
him with a drone to deliver narcotics to an inmate at an Ohio state prison. See PSR, R. 527,
3 No. 25-3144, United States v. Carter
PageID#3916, 3920. All told, Carter exercised decisionmaking authority, was key in planning the
conspiracy, and repeatedly directed the actions of several co-conspirators. See Vasquez, 560 F.3d
at 473. Accordingly, the district court did not err in concluding that the record was “replete” with
examples to support the enhancement. Sentencing Tr., R. 545, PageID#4149.
Resisting this conclusion, Carter asserts that there is no evidence that he personally
benefited from the transactions he oversaw. Carter’s argument suffers from a questionable factual
premise—recall that investigators unearthed thousands of dollars at Carter’s residence and
recording studio. But more than that, it is legally flawed. We agree with Carter that evidence that
a defendant obtained a large share of the fruits of the crime can help support the aggravating role
enhancement. See, e.g., United States v. Araiza, 643 F. App’x 524, 526 (6th Cir. 2016). But that
is just one of many factors relevant to the inquiry, and a district court need not find each factor
applicable to warrant the enhancement. See United States v. Castilla–Lugo, 699 F.3d 454, 460
(6th Cir. 2012) (citing United States v. Gates, 461 F.3d 703, 709 (6th Cir. 2006)). With ample
evidence showing Carter was directing the actions of at least one individual to further the aims of
the extensive drug conspiracy, no error occurred in applying the four-point enhancement. See
Taylor, 85 F.4th at 390.
Turn then to the premises enhancement. Guidelines § 2D1.1(b)(12) applies if Carter
“(1) knowingly (2) open[ed] or maintain[ed] any place (3) for the purpose of manufacturing or
distributing a controlled substance.” United States v. Johnson, 737 F.3d 444, 447 (6th Cir. 2013).
Carter focuses his arguments on the purpose prong. The evidentiary bar to show that a particular
location was maintained for the purpose of manufacturing or distributing narcotics is “relatively
low.” See United States v. Terry, 83 F.4th 1039, 1044 (6th Cir. 2023) (quoting United States v.
Leggett, 800 F. App’x 378, 381 (6th Cir. 2020)). Indeed, the enhancement can apply even if the
4 No. 25-3144, United States v. Carter
space in question was also used for a non-drug related purpose, so long as one of the primary or
principal uses of the property was for drug trafficking. See United States v. Simpson, 138 F.4th
438, 456 (6th Cir. 2025); U.S. Sent’g Guidelines Manual § 2D1.1 cmt. n.17 (U.S. Sent’g Comm’n
2025). As Carter does not contest the facts underlying the enhancement, we review the application
of the enhancement with fresh eyes. United States v. Tripplet, 112 F.4th 428, 432 (6th Cir. 2024).
Here, the district court applied the enhancement based on Carter’s maintenance of two
locations: his home that he shared with Dixon and the recording studio. Yet as “maintaining even
a single premises for drug trafficking” suffices to apply the enhancement, our review can begin
and end with the recording studio. See United States v. Richardson, No. 22-3810, 2024 WL
4816885, at *2 (6th Cir. Nov. 18, 2024). Consider what the district court knew about that location.
Carter “controlled” the studio, having sole access to the location through a keypad, whose code he
would provide to other participants in the conspiracy. See Plea Agreement, R. 507, PageID#3554.
While there was some music equipment in the studio (consistent with it being a recording studio),
the district court found that a primary purpose of the studio was to distribute controlled substances.
Surveillance suggested that Carter conducted numerous drug deals at the studio, with individuals
entering the studio to engage in drug trafficking. Carter also used the studio for storing drugs. A
search of the premises revealed over 50 grams of methamphetamine, nearly 50 grams of heroin,
and roughly a dozen grams of fentanyl mixed with heroin, along with other trappings consistent
with manufacturing and distributing narcotics from the studio. This evidence suffices to establish
that a primary purpose of Carter maintaining the studio was for distributing drugs. See Terry, 83
F.4th at 1044. Contrary to Carter’s assertion, the existence of drug transactions at premises other
than the studio does nothing to diminish the studio’s status as a premises used for the purpose of
5 No. 25-3144, United States v. Carter
manufacturing and distributing drugs. See Richardson, 2024 WL 4816885, at *2. All told, the
district court committed no error in its calculation of Carter’s Guidelines range.
* * * * *
We affirm.