The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has affirmed the 240-month sentence of Zytrell Montae Horton, who was convicted of possessing fentanyl with the intent to distribute. The case involved the death of an Army soldier, L.G., who overdosed on a mixture of cocaine and fentanyl. Horton challenged his sentence on several grounds, but the appellate court found no reversible errors.
Background of the Case
Horton pleaded guilty to the drug charge. His initial Presentence Investigation Report (PSR) calculated a sentencing range of 210-240 months. This calculation was based on the guidelines, which enhance the base offense level if death or serious bodily injury results from the drug crime. The PSR stated that L.G.’s death resulted from Horton’s sale of fentanyl-laced Percocet pills.
At the initial sentencing hearing, Horton objected to applying this enhancement, arguing there was no direct link between the drug sale and L.G.’s death. The government presented evidence, including testimony from an agent with the U.S. Army’s Criminal Investigation Division, showing communications and payments between Horton and L.G., indicating Horton sold the soldier the drugs shortly before the overdose. The district court overruled Horton’s objection and sentenced him to 240 months.
However, the government later conceded that applying the enhancement was an error because L.G.’s death wasn’t part of the crime Horton was convicted of. The case was remanded for resentencing.
At resentencing, the government conceded that the enhancement no longer applied, meaning Horton’s sentencing guidelines range was now 10-16 months. The district court then considered whether to vary upward from this range. The court ultimately imposed the same 240-month sentence.
Horton’s Arguments on Appeal
Horton raised three main arguments on appeal:
* Procedural Unreasonableness: He argued the district court didn’t adequately explain its decision to impose an upward variance of 224 months from the guidelines.
* Substantive Unreasonableness: He claimed the court improperly considered his role in L.G.’s death when determining the sentence.
* Failure to Allow Allocution: He argued the court erred by not allowing him to make a statement to the court (allocute) before sentencing.
The Court’s Findings
The Fifth Circuit addressed each of Horton’s arguments:
Procedural Unreasonableness
The court explained that it reviews preserved sentencing objections in two steps: assessing whether the district court committed a procedural error, and if not, reviewing the sentence’s substantive reasonableness. Unpreserved challenges are reviewed for plain error.
In this case, Horton’s challenge to the explanation of his sentence was reviewed for plain error. The court found that the district court’s explanation was insufficient because it didn’t articulate its reasoning or cite case-specific facts. However, the court found that this error didn’t affect Horton’s substantial rights, as he didn’t offer any arguments to counter the government’s claim that the court’s explanation didn’t influence the sentence.
Substantive Unreasonableness
Because Horton preserved this claim by advocating for a lesser sentence, the court reviewed it for abuse of discretion. The court noted that it can consider the degree of variance from the guidelines when assessing the substantive reasonableness of a non-Guidelines sentence.
Horton argued the court improperly considered L.G.’s death. The Fifth Circuit disagreed, citing precedent that allows a sentencing court to consider a defendant’s contribution to someone’s death. The court also found that the sentence didn’t effectively reintroduce the enhanced penalty that wasn’t applicable. The court concluded the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the 240-month sentence.
Failure to Allow Allocution
Horton argued the court erred by failing to allow him to allocute. Because he didn’t object, the court reviewed for plain error.
The court assumed that not informing Horton of his right to allocute was obvious error. However, it found that Horton failed to show the error “marred the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of our judicial system.”
The court noted Horton had the opportunity to allocute at his initial sentencing. Also, Horton didn’t provide any specific mitigating facts that he would have included in his allocution. Finally, Horton’s counsel offered mitigating arguments on his behalf.
The Ruling
The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s sentence. The court found no reversible errors in the sentencing process and upheld the 240-month prison term.