United States v. Christopher Massena
16-17567
11th Cir.Dec 15, 2017Background
- Defendant Christopher Massena pled guilty to five counts and was tried on one count charging distribution of fentanyl resulting in death under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(C); jury convicted and district court sentenced him to 360 months.
- Victim C.H. purchased drugs via text/phone exchanges with a seller identified as “Slim”; C.H. later ingested drugs, exhibited severe intoxication on a Skype call, and was found dead from acute fentanyl toxicity.
- Government relied largely on circumstantial evidence linking Massena to the “Slim” phone number (calls/texts, an undercover agent’s arranged transactions, eyewitness hearing of calls/texts) and to the drugs sold to C.H. (texts about quantity, testimony about use and remaining capsules, agent’s transaction records).
- Massena argued: (1) government had to prove he intended C.H.’s death and the jury instruction omitted that element; (2) insufficient evidence identified him as Slim or as the drug source; and (3) his 360-month sentence was substantively unreasonable.
- The district court declined to require a specific intent-to-kill instruction, the jury convicted based on circumstantial proof, and the court imposed a within-guidelines 360-month sentence; Massena appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether government must prove intent to cause death for § 841(b)(1)(C) enhancement | Massena: jury must be instructed that he intended to cause C.H.’s death | Government: § 841(a) requires knowing/intentional distribution but § 841(b) penalty enhancement for death has no separate mens rea; Alleyne and Burrage do not impose intent to kill | Court: No error — § 841(b) imposes no mens rea requirement for resulting-death enhancement; no intent-to-kill instruction required |
| Sufficiency of evidence identifying Massena as “Slim” | Massena: identification rests on circumstantial evidence and is insufficient | Government: circumstantial evidence (texts, calls, undercover transactions, agent meetings, admissions) supports a reasonable inference that Massena was Slim | Court: Sufficient evidence — reasonable inferences permitted; jury could find Massena was Slim |
| Sufficiency of evidence that Massena supplied the drugs that caused death | Massena: government failed to prove he was the source of the fentanyl | Government: texts showing purchase/quantities, agent arranged buys, eyewitness Skype showing intoxication, forensic cause of death support inference Massena supplied fatal drugs | Court: Sufficient evidence — reasonable jury could infer Massena sold the drugs that killed C.H. |
| Substantive reasonableness of 360-month sentence | Massena: 240 months sufficient; his rehab prospects and personal substance abuse mitigate | Government/District Court: seriousness, resulting death, deterrence, just punishment, guidelines range support longer term | Court: Sentence substantively reasonable — within or close to guideline range and district court properly weighed § 3553(a) factors |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Rojas, 718 F.3d 1317 (11th Cir. 2013) (standard of review for statutory interpretation)
- United States v. Campa, 529 F.3d 980 (11th Cir. 2008) (review of jury instructions)
- United States v. Jiminez, 564 F.3d 1280 (11th Cir. 2009) (sufficiency-of-evidence standard)
- United States v. Silvestri, 409 F.3d 1311 (11th Cir. 2005) (when to overturn verdict)
- United States v. Perez-Tosta, 36 F.3d 1552 (11th Cir. 1994) (permissibility of circumstantial evidence)
- United States v. Cooper, 733 F.2d 91 (11th Cir. 1984) (identity by inference)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (abuse-of-discretion review of sentence)
- United States v. Cubero, 754 F.3d 888 (11th Cir. 2014) (district court may attach great weight to particular § 3553(a) factors)
- United States v. Hunt, 526 F.3d 739 (11th Cir. 2008) (within-guidelines sentences ordinarily reasonable)
- United States v. Irey, 612 F.3d 1160 (11th Cir. 2010) (definitive-and-firm-conviction standard for sentencing review)
- United States v. Sanders, 668 F.3d 1298 (11th Cir. 2012) (§ 841(b) imposes no mens rea requirement for death enhancement)
- Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (2013) (which facts must be found by a jury)
- Burrage v. United States, 571 U.S. 204 (2014) (identifies elements: intentional distribution and death resulting from use without adding intent-to-kill requirement)