110 F.4th 909
6th Cir.2024Background
- Gregory D. Ralston was convicted after a jury trial of distributing and possessing fentanyl with intent to distribute; he was acquitted of causing serious bodily injury by distributing fentanyl.
- Ralston was arrested after police used text evidence and an undercover sting to set up a drug transaction following an overdose incident involving a buyer (Villegas).
- Evidence against Ralston included text messages, physical recovery of fentanyl, and his own admission to intent to sell drugs.
- At sentencing, the district court imposed a significant upward variance (180 months vs. a 27-33 month guideline range), relying heavily on Ralston's past conviction and findings of acquitted conduct (overdose resulting in serious bodily injury).
- On appeal, Ralston challenged the denial of his suppression motion (without hearing), limitations on cross-examination, procedural and substantive reasonableness of his sentence, and addressed a new Sentencing Guidelines amendment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Denial of Suppression Hearing | Court erred by not holding evidentiary hearing on suppression | No contested material facts, only legal dispute on probable cause | No abuse of discretion; legal issue only |
| Limitation on Cross-Examination | Sixth Amendment violated by restricting impeachment of witness incentive/bias | District court properly limited cross for relevance; Ralston could ask witness directly | No Confrontation Clause violation; court did not improperly restrict cross-exam |
| Procedural Reasonableness of Sentence | Court did not adequately explain 450% upward variance and relied on acquitted conduct | District court addressed 3553(a) factors, explained variance, permitted under existing law | No procedural error; explanation sufficient, use of acquitted conduct allowed |
| Substantive Reasonableness of Sentence | Sentence too great, over-emphasized prior conviction and acquitted conduct | Justification included deterrence, dangerousness, 2018 conviction, 3553(a) factors | No abuse of discretion; sentence substantively reasonable |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Watts, 519 U.S. 148 (permissibility of using acquitted conduct at sentencing)
- United States v. Gall, 552 U.S. 38 (district court discretion and review of sentencing factors)
- United States v. White, 551 F.3d 381 (sentencing based on acquitted conduct permissible under Sixth Circuit law)
- United States v. Vonner, 516 F.3d 382 (application of Bostic plain error standard at sentencing objections)
- United States v. Bostic, 371 F.3d 865 (requirement for district courts to ask for sentencing objections)