Local Fentanyl Dealer Worked From HOME — And It Cost Him Extra Years in Prison b/c Home Enhancement

Isaac Tekola ran a fentanyl distribution operation out of his apartment — and when he got caught, he argued his home was just… his home. The Ninth Circuit wasn’t buying it.

In this video, we break down United States v. Tekola (9th Cir. 2026), where the court upheld a two-level sentencing enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(12) — the “maintained a premises” enhancement — even though Tekola’s apartment was also his primary residence.

What you’ll learn:
1. What the § 2D1.1(b)(12) sentencing enhancement actually is
2. Why living somewhere doesn’t protect you from this enhancement
3. How the Ninth Circuit distinguished this case from United States v. Shetler
4. Why your text messages will absolutely destroy you in court
5. What “primary or principal use” really means under the Sentencing Guidelines

⚖️ United States v. Tekola, No. 24-5467 (9th Cir. March 9, 2026), https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2026/03/09/24-5467.pdf
🗓️ Argued February 9, 2026 | Filed March 9, 2026

LAWSTACHE breaks down real court cases in plain English — so you actually understand what’s happening in the legal system.
🔔 Subscribe for new cases every Wednesday
👍 Like if this helped you understand federal sentencing law
💬 Comment: Do you think the enhancement was applied fairly here?