In the

    United States Court of Appeals
                For the Seventh Circuit
                   ____________________
No. 23-1976
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                             Plaintiff-Appellee.
                              v.

TRAVIS MONTGOMERY,
                                          Defendant-Appellant.
                   ____________________

   Appeal from the United States District Court for the
    Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division.
  No. 1:22CR00012-001 — Tanya Walton Pratt, Chief Judge.
                  ____________________

      ARGUED MARCH 5, 2024 — DECIDED JUNE 24, 2024
                ____________________

   Before SYKES, Chief Judge, and LEE and KOLAR, Circuit
Judges.
    PER CURIAM. Travis Montgomery pleaded guilty to dis-
tributing methamphetamine. At his sentencing hearing, the
government proved that Montgomery had stowed the meth-
amphetamine (as well as other drugs), cash, and drug traffick-
ing paraphernalia in an off-site storage unit leased by his sis-
ter. Finding that Montgomery had used the storage unit
2                                                  No. 23-1976

primarily to facilitate his drug operation, the district court
added a two-level enhancement pursuant to § 2D1.1(b)(12) of
the United States Sentencing Guidelines. See U.S.S.G.
§ 2D1.1(b)(12) (requiring two-level increase where a defend-
ant “maintained a premises for the purpose of … distributing
a controlled substance”). But because the present record falls
short of establishing that a primary use of the storage unit was
drug distribution, we vacate and remand for further factfind-
ing.
                               I
    A confidential source for the Federal Bureau of Investiga-
tion contacted Montgomery in June 2021 to buy methamphet-
amine. On three occasions that month, Montgomery in-
structed the source to meet him in the parking lot of a storage
unit facility. Montgomery then accessed a particular storage
unit (which was leased by his sister) and sold the drugs to the
source.
   Investigators executed a search warrant on the unit in late
June. They found small quantities of cocaine and heroin,
about 3.5 pounds of methamphetamine, cash, equipment
used for distribution such as a scale and bags, and Montgom-
ery’s state identification card.
    Montgomery pleaded guilty to distribution of fifty or
more grams of methamphetamine. 

(a)(1),
(b)(1)(A)(viii). The Presentence Investigation Report recom-
mended a two-level enhancement for “maintain[ing] a prem-
ises for the purpose of manufacturing or distributing a con-
trolled substance.” U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(12).
No. 23-1976                                                     3

    Objecting to this enhancement, Montgomery cited a recent
case, United States v. Ford, 

, 695 (7th Cir. 2022),
where we cautioned against applying the enhancement be-
yond its intended application. In Ford, the defendant had sold
drugs out of a bedroom at a friend’s home for a four-month
period. 

 Although we affirmed the imposition of the en-
hancement given the particular circumstances there, we noted
that it was a “borderline” case closer to the “outer limits of the
enhancement’s reach.” 

 (citing United States v. Zamudio, 

, 563 (7th Cir. 2021)). As Montgomery saw it, his
month-long activities involving the storage unit fell well short
of the “sustained period of time” the premises enhancement
requires. 

 at 694 (quoting United States v. Acosta, 

 (7th Cir. 2008)). In addition, Montgomery also argued
that our cases affirming the enhancement dealt almost exclu-
sively with houses or homes, rather than storage units.
    In support of the enhancement, the government presented
the testimony of a federal investigator familiar with the case,
who verified that the storage unit was in Montgomery’s sis-
ter’s name, that it had been accessed several times a day be-
tween May 30 and June 29 (according to the facility’s records),
and that video footage showed Montgomery entering the unit
on three occasions. Furthermore, at the time of the search, the
storage unit housed only the drugs, cash, drug-related items,
Montgomery’s ID card, as well as a set of automobile tires.
   Based on these facts, the district court applied the two-
level enhancement, finding that the storage unit qualified as
a “premises” under § 2D1.1(b)(12), and that Montgomery had
used it for the primary purpose of storing and distributing
drugs. The enhancement boosted Montgomery’s total offense
level to 35. This offense level, combined with Montgomery’s
4                                                    No. 23-1976

criminal history category of VI (he was a career offender),
yielded a guidelines range of 292 to 365 months’ imprison-
ment. The court, however, noted an upcoming revision to the
Sentencing Guidelines (concerning career offender status)
that would drop Montgomery’s criminal history category
from VI to IV, see U.S. Sent’g Comm’n, Adopted Amendments,
at 43–44 (effective Nov. 1, 2023), and decrease his guidelines
range from 292 to 365 months to 235 to 293 months of impris-
onment. (Had the premises enhancement not applied, his
guidelines range with the revision would have been 188 to
235 months’ imprisonment.) The court sentenced Montgom-
ery to 235 months of imprisonment and five years of super-
vised release.
                                II
   On appeal, Montgomery challenges the application of the
§ 2D1.1(b)(12) enhancement. He argues that he lacked any
possessory interest in the storage unit because he did not rent
or own the unit, he did not control access to it, he did not
make any drug sales in it, and his use of it was for only a short
time. Noting that the enhancement intended to stop people
from using homes for the drug trade, he adds that he did not
use the storage unit for the “purpose” of distributing drugs.
    The sentencing enhancement under § 2D1.1(b)(12) pro-
vides for a two-level increase to the offense level if the defend-
ant (1) “maintained” (2) a “premises” (3) for the “purpose” of
manufacturing or distributing drugs. This court reviews the
district court’s legal interpretation of the Sentencing Guide-
lines de novo and its findings of fact for clear error. United
States v. Flores-Olague, 

 (7th Cir. 2013). A dis-
trict court need find only by a preponderance of the evidence
No. 23-1976                                                    5

facts sufficient to support an enhancement. United States v.
Griffin, 

, 751 (7th Cir. 2023).
    To start, we agree with the district court that the storage
unit constituted a “premises” under the enhancement. Under
Application Note 17 to the enhancement, a “premises” can be
“a building, room, or enclosure.” U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1 cmt. n.17.
We have yet to apply this broad language to storage units, but
we see no reason a storage unit would not qualify as a “room”
or “enclosure.”
    We are less certain, based on this record, that Montgomery
sufficiently “maintained” the storage unit for the purposes of
§ 2D1.1(b)(12). It is true that the Guidelines and Ford instruct
district courts to consider the defendant’s possessory interest
in the premises and “the extent to which [the defendant] con-
trolled access and activities on the premises.” Ford, 22 F.4th at
695; see also U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1 cmt. n.17. And here, although
Montgomery did not lease the storage unit himself, the record
shows that he could access it whenever he liked.
    But while control is an important factor, it is not the only
one. See U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1 cmt. n.17 (noting that control is
“[a]mong the factors” a court should consider in determining
whether a defendant “maintained” the premises). Indeed, we
have consistently stated that to “maintain” a drug premises, a
defendant must exercise control and use the premises for
drug operations “for a sustained period of time.” See United
States v. Evans, 

 (7th Cir. 2016) (quoting
Acosta, 

). And, although the § 2D1.1(b)(12) in-
quiry is fact-intensive and individual circumstances will dif-
fer from case to case, to date, two to three months is the short-
est duration of time where we have approved the enhance-
ment’s application. See, e.g., Zamudio, 18 F.4th at 563
6                                                      No. 23-1976

(defendant stored drugs in his garage for two to three
months); Ford, 22 F.4th at 695 (defendant’s usage of rear bed-
room for only four months is “closer to the outer limits of the
enhancement’s reach”).
    But we need not decide the sufficiency of a one-month pe-
riod today. To satisfy § 2D1.1(b)(12), the government must
also demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that
Montgomery maintained the storage unit for the “purpose of
manufacturing or distributing a controlled substance.”
U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(12); see also Evans, 

. Alt-
hough distributing drugs need not be the sole purpose for
which Montgomery maintained the unit, it “must be one of
the defendant’s primary or principal uses for the premises, ra-
ther than one of the defendant’s incidental or collateral uses
for the premises.” U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(12) cmt. n.17; see also
United States v. Beechler, 

, 369 (7th Cir. 2023); Flores-
Olague, 

.
    Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that a month-
long period is enough to “maintain” a premises under
§ 2D1.1(b)(12), the record falls short of indicating that Mont-
gomery was using the storage unit for the primary purpose of
distributing drugs during the month in question. As the gov-
ernment points out, we have held that daily use of a premises
for drug distribution is enough to trigger the enhancement.
See Flores-Olague, 

. Here, however, the govern-
ment presented only three occasions when Montgomery ac-
cessed the storage unit in connection with his drug trade. We
also know from the facility’s records that someone accessed
the unit multiple times a day between May 30 and June 11,
although we don’t know who accessed it (whether Montgom-
ery or his sister) or for what purpose. Perhaps additional
No. 23-1976                                                   7

factfinding might show that it was Montgomery who utilized
the unit on each of those occasions to further his drug opera-
tion. But as it stands, the record is unclear. We know only that
Montgomery accessed the unit to carry out drug transactions
three times and that an unidentified individual accessed the
unit many more times during the same period for some un-
known purpose. And, although courts are not required to em-
ploy a “simple balancing test” comparing the frequency of
lawful and unlawful activities, United States v. Contreras, 

 (7th Cir. 2017), given the facts we do have, the
government needs to show more than three transactions tied
to the storage unit in a one-month period to satisfy its burden
to trigger the two-level enhancement under § 2D1.1(b)(12).
    Accordingly, we VACATE the judgment and REMAND
for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.