Summary
The Fifth Circuit affirmed Zytrell Montae Horton’s 240-month sentence for possessing fentanyl with intent to distribute. The court held that the district court plainly failed to adequately explain the substantial upward variance but that Horton did not show the error affected his substantial rights. The court also upheld consideration of the victim’s death in sentencing and declined to grant relief for the failure to provide an opportunity for allocution at resentencing.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the district court's explanation for the 224-month upward variance was procedurally inadequate.
- Whether the 240-month upward-variance sentence was substantively unreasonable because the district court considered Horton's role in L.G.'s death.
- Whether the district court's failure to inform Horton of his right to allocute required resentencing.
Holdings
- The district court's bare reference to the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors was an insufficient explanation for the substantial upward variance and constituted clear procedural error, but Horton failed to show that the error affected his substantial rights under plain-error review.
- The district court did not abuse its discretion by considering the fact that Horton contributed to L.G.'s death under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), even though the death-related enhancement was not part of Horton's offense of conviction.
- Even assuming that the failure to inform Horton of his right to allocute was obvious error affecting substantial rights, the error did not warrant correction because Horton failed to show that it seriously affected the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the proceedings.
Key quotations
“For such sentences, a district court must “carefully articulate the reasons” for its decision and include “facts specific to the case at hand which led the court to conclude that the sentence imposed was fair and reasonable.”” (6)
“Even when the enhanced penalty does not apply, our precedent permits a district court to weigh under § 3553(a) the fact that a defendant contributed to someone’s death.” (7-8)
“Even then, we will correct the error only if Horton shows it “mar[red] the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of our judicial system.”” (9)
Factual background
Horton sold fentanyl disguised as Percocet to L.G., an Army soldier who later died from a toxic mixture of fentanyl and cocaine. Investigators also documented similar undercover purchases from Horton, including one within twelve hours of L.G.'s death. At resentencing, the district court considered the circumstances of the drug dealing, the victim's death, Horton's history and characteristics, and his subsequent guilty plea to a state murder charge in imposing a 240-month upward variance.
Procedural history
Horton pleaded guilty to possessing fentanyl with intent to distribute under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(C). At his original sentencing, the district court applied U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(a)(2) based on a victim's death and imposed a 240-month sentence; on an earlier appeal, the Fifth Circuit remanded because that guideline provision did not apply where the death-related enhancement was not part of the crime of conviction. On resentencing, the guideline range was 10 to 16 months, but the district court varied upward to 240 months without informing Horton of his right to allocute. The Fifth Circuit affirmed, finding no reversible plain error and no abuse of discretion.