970 F.3d 607
5th Cir.2020Background:
- Police responded to a 911 call and found AF, a 24‑year‑old woman, unresponsive; she was later pronounced dead.
- Witnesses say AF had taken heroin; Hudgens (her boyfriend) obtained methamphetamine from Corey Reeves Bostic and administered it to AF.
- Medical examiner: drug use likely contributed but AF’s preexisting enlarged heart prevented conclusive but‑for causation under Burrage.
- Bostic pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine; the PSR calculated a Guidelines range of 21–27 months (offense level 10, CH V).
- The district court deemed that range “wanting,” imposed a 235‑month sentence (near the statutory exposure for distribution resulting in death), and the written Statement of Reasons mischaracterized the sentence as within the Guidelines and omitted reasons for the variance.
- The Fifth Circuit vacated and remanded for resentencing, holding the district court provided an inadequate explanation for the dramatic upward variance; Judge Ho dissented.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adequacy of explanation for large upward variance | Variance justified by depravity/seriousness of conduct and the death; judge’s remarks suffice | Procedurally unreasonable: court failed to explain 770%+ variance or respond to defense objections | Vacated and remanded: explanation inadequate for a major variance (procedural error) |
| Consideration of §3553(a) factors | Court referenced seriousness (§3553(a)(2)) and compared statutory exposure; this supports variance | Court failed to address §3553(a)(1) arguments (nature/circumstances, defendant’s state) and left Statement of Reasons blank | Remand required because record does not show meaningful consideration of relevant §3553(a) factors |
| Preservation and standard of review | (Dissent/Gov) Objection was not specific—if unpreserved, review should be plain error | Defense contends objection preserved earlier §3553(a)(1) arguments; appellate review should be abuse of discretion | Majority: preserved via prior argument; review for abuse of discretion. Dissent would apply plain‑error review |
Key Cases Cited
- Burrage v. United States, 571 U.S. 204 (2014) (but‑for causation required for §841(b)(1)(C) enhancement)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (procedural and substantive reasonableness framework; Guidelines as starting point)
- United States v. Smith, 440 F.3d 704 (5th Cir. 2006) (greater variance requires more compelling, fact‑specific justification)
- United States v. Mondragon‑Santiago, 564 F.3d 357 (5th Cir. 2009) (inadequate explanation when record shows only recitation of Guidelines and brief colloquy)
- United States v. Chon, 713 F.3d 812 (5th Cir. 2013) (passing reference to §3553(a) factors is insufficient without explanation)
- United States v. Neal, 578 F.3d 270 (5th Cir. 2009) (what constitutes a preserved objection).
- United States v. Johnson, 648 F.3d 273 (5th Cir. 2011) (district court may issue the same sentence on remand with fuller explanation)
- United States v. Fraga, 704 F.3d 432 (5th Cir. 2013) (district court need not utter rote incantations for each §3553(a) factor)
- United States v. Key, 599 F.3d 469 (5th Cir. 2010) (the full sentencing record can supply reasons allowing effective appellate review)
- United States v. Hoffman, 901 F.3d 523 (5th Cir. 2018) (appellate review of substantive reasonableness is highly deferential)
- Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (2009) (plain‑error standard for unpreserved objections)