United States v. Heindenstrom, 946 F.3d 57

In March 2016, Kyle Gavin was found dead with drug paraphernalia; toxicology showed ethanol, methanol, and fentanyl. Texts and investigation connected the purchase to Lucas Heindenstrom.
Heindenstrom admitted selling Gavin a gram of heroin the night before Gavin died; texts indicate Heindenstrom knew the drugs contained fentanyl.
Heindenstrom pleaded guilty to one count of distributing a fentanyl-containing substance under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1).
At sentencing the court held an evidentiary hearing; defense expert opined all three toxins contributed but no single toxin could be proven the sole cause of death.
The district court found Heindenstrom supplied fentanyl, knew of its presence, and that fentanyl meaningfully contributed to Gavin’s death (but was not proven to be the strict but-for cause).
The court imposed a 60-month sentence (GSR 8–14 months), framing it both as an upward departure under USSG §5K2.1 and, alternatively, an upward variance under 18 U.S.C. §3553(a); Heindenstrom appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Standard for §5K2.1 “death resulted”	Lower causation standard (drug need only meaningfully contribute)	Burrage requires strict but-for causation	Court avoided definitively resolving conflict; noted unnecessary because sentence supportable as variance
Procedural error for considering death absent strict but-for causation	Consideration permissible under §3553(a); evidence reliable and tied death to offense	Court erred by weighing death without strict but-for link	No procedural error; court did not abuse discretion in considering death as factor for a variance
Substantive reasonableness of 60-month upward variance	Facts (knowledge of fentanyl, contribution to death, deterrence) justify variance	Excessive given lack of strict but-for causation and large increase over GSR	Substantively reasonable; sentence rests on plausible rationale and is within district court’s discretion
Harmlessness of invoking §5K2.1 departure if erroneous	Any error harmless because court would have imposed same sentence as a variance	Departure error would require relief	Harmless: identical sentence would have been imposed as an upward variance, so no reversal required

Burrage v. United States, 571 U.S. 204 (2014) (Supreme Court held certain penalty enhancements require but-for causation where distributed drug is not independently sufficient to cause death)
United States v. Pacheco, 489 F.3d 40 (1st Cir. 2007) (interpreting §5K2.2 as permitting departure when a drug "played a meaningful role" in injury)
United States v. Aponte-Vellón, 754 F.3d 89 (1st Cir. 2014) (departure error can be harmless when identical sentence would have been imposed via variance)
United States v. Matos-de-Jesús, 856 F.3d 174 (1st Cir. 2017) (articulating two-step appellate review of sentencing challenges)
United States v. Rodríguez-Reyes, 925 F.3d 558 (1st Cir.) (discussing interplay of Guidelines framework and §3553(a) sentencing factors)
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (district courts have broad discretion to impose non-Guidelines sentences; appellate review for abuse of discretion)