midpage
Sign in to see your projects.
7 F.4th 40
2d Cir.
2021
Read the full case

Background

  • Torri McCray was indicted on: (1) distribution/possession with intent to distribute fentanyl, and (2) distribution/possession with intent to distribute 10+ grams of butyryl fentanyl (enhanced penalty under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B)(vi)).
  • Butyryl fentanyl had been temporarily and remains listed as a Schedule I controlled substance by federal regulation.
  • Controlled buys in 2017 (using a confidential source) recovered multiple fentanyl analogues including substantial amounts of butyryl fentanyl; a separate November 21, 2016 sale preceded a fatal fentanyl overdose of the Buyer’s friend (the victim).
  • McCray moved to dismiss the enhanced-count allegation, arguing that § 802(32)’s definition of “controlled substance analogue” excludes a listed controlled substance like butyryl fentanyl; the district court denied the motion.
  • McCray pleaded guilty but reserved the right to appeal the denial. At sentencing the district court found by a preponderance that McCray’s 11/21/2016 sale was relevant conduct that caused the victim’s death and imposed a 30‑month upward departure under U.S.S.G. § 5K2.1 (resulting in a 90‑month term).
  • McCray appealed arguing (1) butyryl fentanyl cannot qualify as an “analogue” under § 841(b)(1)(B)(vi) because it is a scheduled controlled substance, and (2) the district court clearly erred in the death finding and abused its discretion in applying the § 5K2.1 enhancement.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument (Government) Defendant's Argument (McCray) Held
Whether "analogue" in § 841(b)(1)(B)(vi) includes a substance that is itself scheduled "Analogue" should be given its ordinary meaning; butyryl fentanyl is an analogue of fentanyl § 802(32) excludes scheduled substances from "controlled substance analogue," so butyryl fentanyl cannot be an "analogue" for enhanced penalty The ordinary meaning of "analogue" governs; butyryl fentanyl qualifies; § 802(32) (the term of art) does not control here
Void-for-vagueness / fair notice of enhanced penalty Statute gives fair notice; butyryl fentanyl plainly an analogue under ordinary meaning Applying "analogue" to a scheduled substance is unconstitutionally vague Rejected; statute provides fair notice and meets due process
Whether the Nov. 21, 2016 sale is relevant conduct to 2017 offenses The 2016 sale and 2017 controlled buys form the same course of conduct (same buyer, drug, relationship) Hiatus, quantity differences, and controlled-buys context show separate series of offenses No clear error: the sales were sufficiently connected to qualify as the same course of conduct under U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3
Whether the district court clearly erred / abused discretion in finding the death resulted from McCray’s sale and in applying § 5K2.1 (and whether preponderance is adequate) Buyer’s credible testimony and circumstantial links meet preponderance; preponderance is the correct standard; 30‑month departure reasonable Buyer unreliable; evidence insufficient; due process requires a higher burden; departure unsupported No clear error or abuse of discretion; factual findings supported by preponderance; preponderance is the appropriate standard

Key Cases Cited

  • Smith v. United States, 508 U.S. 223 (1993) (use ordinary meaning for undefined statutory terms)
  • Russello v. United States, 464 U.S. 16 (1983) (different phrasing in same statute implies different meaning)
  • United States v. Cordoba-Murgas, 233 F.3d 704 (2d Cir. 2000) (preponderance standard for sentencing findings about uncharged conduct)
  • United States v. Perdomo, 927 F.2d 111 (2d Cir. 1991) (quantity differences do not preclude same-course-of-conduct finding)
  • United States v. Santiago, 906 F.2d 867 (2d Cir. 1990) (time gaps do not necessarily defeat course-of-conduct link)
  • Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, N.C., 470 U.S. 564 (1985) (appellate clear-error standard for factual findings)
  • United States v. Delacruz, 862 F.3d 163 (2d Cir. 2017) (trial court’s credibility determinations at sentencing are entitled to deference)
Read the full case

Case Details

Case Name: United States v. McCray
Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Date Published: Jul 29, 2021
Citations: 7 F.4th 40; 20-2545
Docket Number: 20-2545
Court Abbreviation: 2d Cir.
Log In