# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 7- 30 46

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca

Pla in ti ff - App el le e

v.

Ant rel l Des ha rro n Lewi s

Defe nd an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __

App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t

fo r th e Nor th ern Dis tri ct of I owa - Dub uq ue

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Ju ne 15 , 20 18

Fi le d: Ju ly 13, 2 01 8

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re LOKEN, GRUEND ER, an d ERI CKSON, Ci rcu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __

ERICKSON, Ci rcu it Ju dg e.

Fo ll owi ng a th ree- da y be nc h tri al

, th e di st ric t cou rt fo un d Ant rel l Des ha rro n 1

Lewis gu il ty of on e c o u n t o f co ns pi racy to di st rib ut e a m ix tu re or su bs ta nc e

co nt ai ni ng he ro in an d fu ran y lfe nt an y l res ul ti ng in de at h an d se rio us bo di ly in jury, in

The Hon or ab le Leo na rd T. St ran d, Chi ef Ju dg e, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Co ur t 1

fo r th e Nor th ern Dis tri ct of I owa

.vi ol at io n of 2 1 U

. S

. C

. §§ 81 3, 84 1( a)(1 ), 84 1( b) (1 )(C)

, an d 84 6; an d on e co un t of

di st rib ut io n of a m ix tu re or su bs ta nc e co nt ai ni ng he ro in an d fu ran y lfe nt an y l res ul ti ng

in de at h an d se rio us bo di ly i nju ry , i n vi ol at io n of 21 U

. S

. C

. § § 8 1 3, 84 1( a)(1 ), an d

84 1( b) (1 )(C)

. The co ur t se nt en ced Lewis to co nc u r r e n t te rm s of 25 2 m on th s’

im pr is on m en t t o b e fo ll owe d b y co nc ur ren t t hr ee-year te rm s o f su pe rv is ed rel eas e.

On ap pe al

, Lewis arg ue s t h e e v id en ce was in su ffi ci en t to su pp or t th e

co nv ic ti on s be ca

use (1 ) ot he r in di vi du al s m ig ht ha ve di st rib ut ed th e he ro in la ced wit h

fu ran y lfe nt an y l th at cau se d th e de at h an d/ or se rio us bo di ly in juri es ; (2 ) th e

go ve rn m en t fai le d to es ta bl is h “ bu t-f or ” cau sa ti o n d u e t o th e in te rv en in g act of

red is tri bu ti on by an ot he r in di vi du al ; (3 ) no co ns pi racy ex is te d be twee n Lewis an d th e

in di vi du al who di st rib ut ed th e dr ug s to th e vi ct im s; an d (4 ) th e go ve rn m en t fai le d to

pr ov e Lewis kn owi ng ly di st rib ut ed an an al og ue of a co nt ro ll ed su bs ta nc e. Hav in g juri sd ic ti on un de r 28 U.S.C. § 1 29 1, we af fir m

.

I. Ba ck gr ou nd

Jo sh ua Man ni ng te st ifi ed th at fo r ab ou t two m on th s pr io r to Mar ch 2, 20 16

, he

ha d be en ob ta in in g he ro in fro m Lewis in Dub uq ue
, Io wa. Ma n n i n g u s u al ly

co nd uc te d a co up le of tra ns act io ns w i t h Lewis each week in vo lv in g ha lf gr am or

gr am qu an ti ti es

. He was so m et im es joi ne d by hi s fri en d Je rem y Nad erm an n on th es e

tri ps to Dub uq ue

.

A c co rd in g to Man ni ng ’s te st im on y , on Mar ch 2, 20 16

, he co nt act ed Le w i s

ab ou t ob ta in in g fiv e gr am s of he ro in on a “ fro nt .” Man ni ng as ke d Nad erm an n to go 2

A “ fro nt ” in th e co nt ex t of dr ug tra ffi ck in g si m pl y m ean s pa y m en t fo r dr ug s 2

is m ad e at a la te r da te

, pr es um ab ly aft er sm al le r po rti on s are so ld an d th e pr oc eed s fro m th e sa le s ar e co ll ect ed

.

-2

-wit h hi m be cau se Man ni ng di d no t ha ve a ve hi cl e. Man ni ng in te nd ed to gi ve on e or

two gra m s o f he ro in to Nade rm an n fo r le tt in g h im us e a ca r to m ak e th e tr ip

.

Nad erm an n an d Man ni ng j oin ed by tw o oth er in di vi du al s, Mi ch ael Van am bu rg

an d Ant ho ny Kell y , dr ov e to Dub uq ue fo r th e pu rp os e of ob ta in in g he ro in

. Man ni ng

te st ifi ed he ga ve Lewis $2 00 in pr oc eed s fro m Man ni ng ’s sa le of pr ev io us ly-fron te d

he ro in

. Man n i n g e x p l a i n ed at tri al th at fiv e gr am s was th e la rg es t qu an ti ty he ha d

r e c e i v ed fro m Lewis in a si ng le tra ns act io n. Nad erm an n co nf irmed du rin g hi s

te st im on y th at a mee t i n g w as arra ng ed wit h Lewis on Mar ch 2, 20 16

, to ob ta in

he ro in

. Nad erm an n ad de d th at th ere was s o me d i s c u s si on ab ou t th e fo ur of th em

po ol in g th ei r m on ey to ge th er to ob ta in a la rg er am ou nt of he ro in

, whi ch th ey wou ld

th en di vi de in to po rti on s. Acco rd in g to Man ni ng
, Lewis ag reed to fro nt fiv e g ram s

of he ro in to hi m

for $8 00

.

Afte r Man ni ng rece iv ed th e he ro in , Na de rm an n req ue st ed t h e g ro up dr iv e to

Je rem y St ie rm an ’s res id en ce in Dub uq ue

. Man ni ng te st ifi ed th at he an d Nad erm an n

wen t in si de St ie rm an ’s ap art m en t whi le Van a mb u rg an d Kell y st ay ed in th e car.

Man ni ng weig he d ou t on e or two gr am s of he ro in fo r Nad erm an n an d a “ 50 ba g”

(ab ou t 0.2 gr am s) fo r Van am bu rg

. Man ni ng pu t th e res t in a ba g. Afte r di vi di ng th e

h e r o i n in to po rti on s, Man ni ng an d Nad erm an n ret ur ne d to th e ve hi cl e to ge t hi gh

. Man ni ng ga ve Van am

bu rg th e “ 50 ba g.” Man ni ng us ed a sp oo n an d wate r to pr ep are

a li qu id m ix tu re an d dr ew so m e of it in to a syrin ge fo r hi s us e
, an d th en ga ve th e

sp oo n t o Kel ly so h e co ul d u se what was l eft

.

Man ni ng te st i f

i ed th at he be li ev ed th e su bs ta nc e he rece iv ed fro m Lewis on

Mar ch 2, 20 16

, was m or e po te nt th an wha t he us ua ll y rece iv ed

. He de sc rib ed feel in g

a m or e in te ns e hi gh

. Nad erm an n tes ti fie d th at he us ed so m e of th e he ro in Man ni ng

rece iv ed fro m Lewis th at ev en in g an d ex pe rie nc ed a “ st ro ng weir d fe el in g” bu t di d

no t lo se co ns ci ou sn es s. In a ve ry sh or t pe rio d of ti m e aft er us in g th e he ro in in si de th e

ve hi cl e, Man ni ng no ti ced th at Kell y was un res po ns iv e in th e ba ck se at

. Man ni ng an d

-3

-Nad erm an n at te m pt ed to rev iv e Kell y

. W he n th ey were un su cces sf ul

, Man ni ng to ok

h is po rti on of he ro in ba ck to St ie rm an ’s ap art m en t an d cal le d 91 1. Dur in g th e

eme r g en cy cal l, Nad erm an n ad vi se d Man ni ng th at Van am bu rg
, to o, was

un res po ns iv e.

Befo re em erg en cy res po nd ers arri ve d on sc en e, Man ni ng te st ifi ed th at he sa w

Nad erm an n th ro w wha t Man ni ng be li ev ed to be a syrin ge an d Nad erm an n’s po rti on

of th e he ro in in to a sn owb an k. Em erg en cy res po nd ers
, su sp ect in g op ia te ov erd os es
,

te st ifi ed th ey ad m in is te red Narca n an d rev iv ed bo th Kell y an d Van am bu rg

. Onc e

al ert

, K e l l y an d Van am

bu rg were tra ns po rte d to th e ho sp it al in am bu la nc es

. Dr.

Jo sh ua Pru it t, an em erg en cy roo m ph y si ci an
, th e de pu ty m ed ic al ex am in er for Lin n

Co un ty, Io wa, an d th e ch ie f m ed i c a l e xa m in er fo r Ced ar Co un ty, Io wa, te st ifi ed at

tri al

. Dr. Pru it t te st ifi ed th at

, up on rev ie w of th e ev i d en ce, it was hi s op in io n th at

Kell y was ren de red un co ns ci ou s be cau se of an op ia te ov erd os e an d th at Kell y was at

se rio us ris k of de at h wit ho ut m ed ic al in te rv en ti on

. D r

. Pru it t al so te st ifi ed th at

Van am bu rg face d th e sa m e r is ks an d th at Van am bu rg wou ld no t ha ve be en in th at

s it ua ti on wit ho ut th e us e of an op ia te

. Dr. Pru it t no te d th at Van am bu rg ha d b e e n

pr es cri be d Oxycod on e, bu t di sc ou nt ed the poss ibi lit y tha t V an am

bur g’ s ov erd os e was

cau se d by th e pr es cri pt io n m ed ic at io n, as he was us in g it as di rect ed an d th e
freq ue nc y do sa ge wou ld no t cau se th e effe ct s Van am bu rg e x p e r ie nc ed

. Dr. Pru it t

op in ed th at Oxycod on e was no t t he cau se of Va na m bu rg ’s ov erd os e.

Dur in g th e se arch of th e ve hi cl e, la w en fo rcem en t of fic ers fo un d a m et al sp oo n

co nt ai ni ng so m e res id ue an d a sm al l co tt on swab

. The it em s were se nt to th e cri m e

la b fo r te st in g. Th e la b re po rt i nd ic at ed th e su bs ta nc e o n t he sp oo n was he ro in an d

fu ran y lfe nt an y l. In th e r e a r p a s s en ge r do or po ck et

, of fic ers fo un d a sm al l pl as ti c

ba gg ie wit h a wh it e ro ck su bs ta nc e. The la b rep or t in di cat ed th e su bs ta nc e in th e

ba gg ie co nt ai ne d a m ix tu re of her oi n a nd fur an y lfe nt an y l. The su bs ta nc e weig he d

0.1 2 g ram s.

-4

-Man ni ng ad m it te d he pr ov id ed fal se in fo rm at io n to la w en fo rcem en t ab ou t th e

de ta il s of Kell y ’s an d Van am bu rg ’s he ro in u s a g e b e c a u se he di d no t wan t to go to

jail

. Man ni ng an d Nad erm an n were no t arre st ed an d were al lo wed to le av e th e sc en e.

Man ni ng te st ifi ed th at aft er th ey le ft, Nad erm an n wen t ba ck to St ie rm an ’s ap art m en t

to ge t Man ni ng ’s he ro in as well as th e he ro in an d syrin ge Nad erm an n ha d th ro wn in

a sn o wba nk

. Nad erm an n de ni ed th at he wen t ba ck to St ie rm an ’s ap art m en t.

N a d e r man n te st ifi ed th at he an d Man ni ng dr ov e to th e ho sp it al to ch eck on

Van am bu rg a n d K e l l y, bu t up on arri vi ng de ci de d no t to go in si de

. Acco rd in g to

Nad erm an n, he th en pa rte d way s wit h Man ni ng

. Nad erm an n d r o v e ba ck to

Maq uo ke ta whi le Man ni ng st ay ed in Dub uq ue at h is m ot he r’s ho us e.

Bri an Kos te r, St ie rm an ’s co -wo rk er, te st ifi ed at tri al

. He te st ifi ed th at du rin g

th e ev en in g of Mar ch 2, 20 16

, he was at St ie rm an ’s ap art m en t. St ie rm an to ld Kos te r

th at he in te nd ed to us e dr ug s th at ni gh t. Kos te r was no t a dru g u se r an d d id no t s ee

St ie rm an us e dr ug s th at ni gh t. Kos te r was pr es en t at St ie rm an ’s ap art m en t whe n two

m en arri ve d, wen t to th e ki tc he n wit h St ie rm an fo r ab ou t 15 m in ut es , a nd th en le ft.

Kos te r id en ti fie d on e of th e m en as Man ni ng

. Kos te r was al so pr es en t whe n Man ni ng

ret ur ne d to th e ap art m en t an d an no un ced on e of hi s fri en ds ha d st op pe d br eat hi ng in

th e car. Kos te r was co nc ern ed ab ou t ge tt in g in to tro ub le fo r be in g in th e pr es en ce of

dr ug s, so he as ke d St ie rm an if dr ug s were in si de th e ap art m en t. St ie rm an co nf irmed

th e pr es en ce of dr ug s. Kos te r to ld St ie rm an he sh ou ld ge t rid of th em

. Acco rd in g to

Kos te r, St ie rm an le ft th e ap art m en t an d c a me b ack ab ou t on e m in ut e la te r. Kos te r

an d St ie rm an rem ai ne d in th e ap art men t w h i le em erg en cy res po nd ers an d la w

en fo rcem en t of

fic e r s ad dr es se d th e si tu at io n ou ts id e. Abo ut an ho ur aft er la w

en fo rcem en t of

fic ers cl eare d th e sc en e, Kos te r le ft St ie rm an ’s a pa rtment an d dr ov e

ho m e.

In th e earl y m or ni ng ho ur s of Marc h 3 , 20 16 , Nade rm an n s en t te xt m es sa ge s

to St ie rm an

. St ie rm an di d no t res po nd to an y of th e m es sa ge s. Kos te r ta lk ed on th e ph on e to Sti erm an whe n Kos te r arri ve d ho m e. He no ti ced St ie rm an ’s st at e of m in d

-5

-was di ffer en t an d St ie rm an so un de d in to xi cat ed

. At 2: 44 a.m

. on Mar ch 3, 20 16

,

al m os t im m ed ia te ly aft er th e te le ph on e co nv ers at io n en de d, S t i e r m an se nt a te xt

m es sa ge to Kos te r th at st at ed :

So I jus t wan te d to ge t m y st or y st rai gh t ag ai n i n c as e jerry as ks

. . . as far as co ps go we’re in th e cl ear im jus t ho pi ng jerry is n’t su sp ic io us an d

at le as t il l ha ve y ou as an al ib i

. . . jus t li ke we ta lk ed ab ou t m e an d y ou

were ha vi n a few be er s a f t er wor k whe n so m e ran do m du de s jus t

kn oc ke d o n m y

do or

. . . cal l m e whe n you can

.

Kos te r t e s t i f

ie d th at “ jerry ” was St ie rm an ’s la nd lo rd an d he was al so Kos te r’s

la nd lo rd

.

At 2: 07 p.m

. on Mar ch 3, St ie rm an ’s fat he r arri ve d at St ie rm an ’s ap art m en t to

pi ck up St ie rm an an d ta k e h i m t o w or k, as th ey wor ke d at th e sa m e m an uf act ur in g

co m pa ny an d St ie rm an ’s fat he r of te n ga ve St ie rm an a rid e to wor k. W he n St ie rm an

di d no t co m e o ut , Sti erm an ’s fat he r dr ov e to wor k. He be cam e co nc ern ed whe n he

le arn ed St ie rm an di d no t sh ow up fo r wor k. He cal le d St ie rm an ’s si st er du rin g h i s

br eak aro un d 7: 00 p.m

. Sh e dr ov e to St ie rm an ’s ap art m en t an d fo un d St ie rm an de ad

in si de hi s ap art m en t.

Dub uq ue Co un ty Sh eri ff’s Offi cer Ada m W il li am s te st ifi ed th at a ba gg ie

co nt ai ni n g a s u bs ta nc e was fo un d in a ki tc he n cab in et in St ie rm an ’s a pa rtment an d

a sm al l am ou nt of whi te po wde r was fo un d on th e k i t c he n co un te r. A la b rep or t

id en ti fie d th e ba gg ie co nt en ts as 0.1 4 gr am s of fu ran y lfe nt an y l an d he ro in

. The

po wde r on th e co un te r co ns is te d o f fu ran y lfe nt an y l.

Man ni ng te st ifi ed th at t h e o n l y dr ug s in hi s po ss es si on on Mar ch 2- 3, 20 16

,

were th os e he ha d ob ta in ed fro m Lewis

. Man ni ng ac knowle dg ed th at Nad erm an n ha d

“ a li tt le bi t” of he ro in wit h hi m whe n Nad erm an n pi ck ed Man ni ng u p
, b u t t h at th e

gr ou p h a d st op pe d du rin g th e tri p an d us ed Nad erm an n’s he ro in be fo re m eet in g

-6

-Lewis

. Man ni ng te st ifi ed th at h e r e c e i v ed a cal l fro m Lewis a co up le da y s la te r

as ki ng fo r th e m on ey fo r th e he ro in th at ha d be en fro nt ed

. Man ni ng to ld Lewis th at

he di d n ot ha ve th e m on ey an d n ev er p ai d Lewi s fo r th e h ero in

.

Dr. Ju li a Goo di n, Ch ie f Med ic al Exa m in er fo r th e S t at e of Ten ne ss ee, who

pr ev i o u s l y h e l d th e sa m e po si ti on fo r th e St at e of Io wa, pe rfo rm ed an au to ps y on

St ie rm an

. Sh e of

fere d her ex pe rt o pi ni on at t ria l th at fu ran y lfe nt an y l was the cau se

of St ie rm an ’s de at h ba se d on th e to xi co lo gy r ep or t, he r au to ps y fin di ng s, an d

ev id en ce ga th e r e d fro m St ie rm an ’s ap art m en t. Bec au se St ie rm an ’s ur in e was

pr es um pt iv el y po si ti ve fo r op ia te s, Dr. Goo di n co ul d no t ru le ou t th e po ss ib il it y th at

an ot he r op ia te was in vo lv ed as well

. Dr. Goo di n te st ifi ed at tri al th at it was he r

op in io n t ha t St ie rm an wou ld no t h av e d ie d i f he ha d n ot us ed fur an y lfe nt an y l.

II

. Dis cus si on

Lewis co nt en ds th e ev id en ce was in su ffi ci en t to su st ai n th e co nv ic ti on s. He

rai se s se ve ral arg um en ts

, bu t hi s m ai n arg um en t fo cu se s on whe th er th e di st ric t co ur t

erre d w h en it co nv ic te d hi m on th e ch arg ed of fen se s be cau se at m os t he was gu il ty

of di st rib ut in g he ro in

, fo r whi ch th e de at h/ se rio us bo di l y i n ju ry se nt en ci ng

en ha nc em en t fo un d in 21 U.S.C. §8 41 (b )(1 )(C) wou ld no t ap pl y

. W e co ns id er each

of Lewis ’s arg um en ts in tu rn

.

“ W e rev ie w th e su ffi ci en cy of th e ev id en ce de nov o, vi ewin g evi de nc e in th e

li gh t m os t fav or ab le to th e go ve rn m en t, res ol vi ng co nf li ct s in th e go ve rn m en t’s fav or
,

an d acce pt in g al l re a s o n a b le in fere nc es th at su pp or t th e ve rd ic t.” Uni te d St at es v. Trejo, 83 1 F.3 d 10 90

, 10 93 (8 th Ci r. 20 16 ) (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v

. W as hi ng to n,

31 8 F.3 d 84 5, 85 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 03 )) (in te rn al qu ot at io n om it te d)

. “Re v e r sa l is

a p p r o p r i at e on ly whe re a reas on ab le [fac t fin de r] co ul d no t ha ve fo un d al l th e

el em en ts of th e of

fen se be y on d a reas on ab le do ub t.” Id

. at 10 93 –9 4 (q uo ti ng Uni te d

St at es v. Arm st ro ng
, 25 3 F.3 d 33 5, 33 6 (8 th Ci r. 20 01 )) (in te rn al qu ot at io n om it te d)

.

-7

-Lewis co nt en ds th e ev id en ce fai le d to es ta bl is h a co ns pi racy be twee n Man ni ng

an d hi m be cau se Man ni ng ha d no in te nt io n of pa y in g fo r th e dr ug s. It is im m at eri al

whe th er Man ni ng rep ai d Lewis or in te nd ed to rep ay Lewis

. “ To co nv ic t a de fen da nt

of co ns pi racy to di st rib ut e dr ug s, th e go ve r n men t mu st pr ov e th at th ere was an

ag reem en t to di st rib ut e dr ug s, th at th e de fen da nt kn ew of th e ag reem en t, an d th at th e

de fen da nt in te nt io na ll y joi ne d in th e ag reem en t.” Uni te d St at es v. Ch av ez-Al va rez,

59 4 F.3 d 10 62

, 10 66 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ) (ci ti ng Uni te d Stat es v. Beni te z, 53 1 F.3d 71 1,

71 6 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 )). “ An ag reem en t to joi n a co ns pi racy ne ed no t be ex pl ic it an d can

be in ferr ed fro m th e fact s of th e cas e.” Uni te d St at es v. Dav is

, 82 6 F.3 d 10 78

, 10 81

(8 th Cir . 20 16 ) (ci ti ng Uni te d S ta te s v . Sla gg , 65 1 F .3d 83 2, 8 40 (8t h C ir. 2 01 1) ).

The re is ov erwh el m in g ev id en ce in th e reco rd es ta bl is hi ng th at Lewis an d

Man ni ng were en ga ge d in a he ro in tra ffi ck in g co ns pi racy. Man ni ng te st ifi ed th at he

ha d be en rece iv in g he ro in fro m Lewis fo r ap pr ox im at el y two m on th s. Man ni ng pa id

Lewis $2 00 fro m a pr ev io us ly fro nt ed dr ug tra ns act io n whe n he ob ta in ed th e fiv e

gr am s of he ro in th at ga ve ris e t o th e ch arg es in th is cas e. Ove rwh el m in g ev id en ce

es ta bl is he d th at Lewis di st rib ut ed he ro in to Man ni ng on Mar c h 2

, 2 0 1 6

. Lewis

ag reed to fro nt th e dr ug s to Man ni ng in ret ur n fo r $8 00

. The ch arg ed of fen se was a

co ns pi racy to di st rib ut e dr ug s, no t to se ll th em

. The re was su ffi ci en t ev id en ce fo r th e

di st ric t cou rt to co nc lu de th at Lewis kn owi ng ly an d vo lu nt ari ly joi ne d a co ns pi racy

to di st rib ut e h ero in , and he sh ared a co m m on pu rp os e wit h M an ni ng an d o th ers

.

Le w i s ’s id en ti fic at io n of ev id en ce th at weig hs ag ai ns t th e ve rd ic ts an d hi s

cl ai m th at Man ni ng pr ov id ed “ se lf- se rv in g” te st im on y are arg um en ts th a t g o t o th e

di st ric t co ur t’s cred ib il it y de te rm in at io ns an d weig ht to be gi ve n th e ev id en ce. “ [W] e

wil l no t di st ur b th e di st ric t co ur t’s reas on ed cred ib il it y de te rm in at io ns .” Uni te d

St at es v. Bo wie, 6 18 F.3d 80 2, 8 14 (8t h C ir. 2 01 0)

.

-8

-The co ur t ne xt tu rn s to th e fo cal po in t of Lewis ’s ap pe al

, whe th er th e

se nt en ci ng en ha nc em en t fo un d in § 84 1( b) (1 )(C) is su st ai na bl e on th e reco rd

. Lewis

co nt en ds th at th e g o v ern m en t fai le d to pr ov e whe th er it was th e he ro in

, fu ran y lfe nt an y l, or co m

bi na ti on of he ro in an d fu ran ylfe nt an y l th at cau se d th e

ov erd os es an d de at h. Exp ert te st im on y pr ov id ed by m ed ic al pr of es sio na ls es ta

bli shed

be y on d a reas on ab le do ub t th at Van am bu rg an d Kell y wou ld no t ha ve o v erd os ed

“ bu t-f or ” th e us e of fu ran y lfe nt an y l an d th at St ie rm an wou ld no t ha ve di ed “ bu t-f or ”

th e u se of f

ur an y lfe nt an y l.

Th e go ve rn m en t was no t req ui red to pr ov e th at Lewis kn owi ng ly d is tri bu te d

an an al og ue of a co nt ro ll ed su bs ta nc e. W e ha ve rep eat ed ly ex pl ai ne d th at “ [a]

de fen da nt do es ‘not ne ed to kn ow th e ex ac t n a t u r e of th e su bs ta nc e in [h is ]

po ss es si on
, on ly th at it was a co nt ro ll ed su bs ta nc e of so m e ki nd .’ ” Uni te d Stat es v.

Anwar

, 88 0 F.3 d 95 8, 96 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 18 ) (q uo ti ng Uni te d S ta te s v. Mo ral es
, 81 3

F.3 d 10 58

, 10 68 (8 th Ci r. 20 16 )). Sect io n 84 1( b) (1 )(C) is a se nt en ci ng en ha nc em en t,

no t a se pa rat e of

fen se

. To su st ai n a co nv ic ti on un de r 21 U.S.C. § 84 1( a)(1 ) wit h a

se rio us bo di ly in

ju r y o r de at h en ha nc em en t un de r § 84 1( b) (1 )(C)

, th e go ve rn m en t

m us t pr ov e: “ (i) kn owi ng or in te nt i o n al di st rib ut io n of [an il li ci t dr ug ],

. . . an d (ii )

[s eri ou s bo di ly in

jury or ] de at h cau se d by (‘resu lt in g fro m ’) th e us e of th at dr ug .”

Bu rrag e v . Uni te d S ta te s, 5 71 U.S. 20 4, 2 10 (20 14 ).

The Su pr em e Co ur t ex pl ai ne d th at “ whe re us e of th e dr ug di st rib ut ed by th e

de fen da nt i s no t an in de pe nd en tl y su ffi ci en t cau se of th e vi ct im ’s de at h or se rio us

bo di ly in jury, a de fen da nt can no t be li ab le un de r th e pe na lt y en ha nc em en t pr ov is io n

of § 84 1( b) (1 )(C) un le ss su ch us e is a bu t-f or cau se of th e d e at h or in jury.” Id

. at

21 8– 19

. Fo ll owi ng Bu rrag e, th e st at ut or y se nt en ci ng en ha nc em en t in § 84 1( b) (1 )(C)

m ay be pr ov ed in two way s: (1 ) “ bu t-f or ” cau se
, or (2 ) in de pe nd en tl y su ffi ci en t cau se

.

-9

-Th ere is su ffi ci en t ev id en ce in th is cas e to co nc lu de th at th e go ve rn men t

pr ov ed th at Lewis kn owi ng ly an d in te nt io na ll y di st rib ut ed an il li ci t dr ug an d, un de r

th e fact s of th is cas e, us e of th at d r u g w a s a n i n de pe nd en tl y su ffi ci en t cau se of th e

ov erd os es an d de at h. Acco rd Uni te d St at es v. All en
, 71 6 F.App ’x 44 7, 45 0– 51 (6 th

Ci r. 20 17 ) (wh ere vi ct im was fo un d wit h a “ co ck ta il of dr ug s” in he r syste m
, th e st at e

m ed ic al ex am in er’s te st im on y co m bi ne d wit h th e cl os e pr ox im it y of a sp oo n

co nt ai ni ng fen ta nyl was su ffi ci en t fo r th e jury to co nc lu de th at fen ta nyl was an

i n d e p en de nt ly su ffi ci en t cau se of de at h)

. At a m in im um
, th e ev id en ce es ta bl i s h e d

th at

, wit ho ut th e in crem en ta l effe ct of fu ran y lfe nt an y l in th e he ro in

, St ie rm an wou ld

ha ve li ve d an d Kell y an d Van am bu rg wou ld no t ha ve su ffer ed se rio us bo di ly in jury.

The st at ut or y req ui rem en ts fo r th e se nt en ci ng en ha nc em en t set fo rth in § 84 1( b) (1 )(C)

ha ve be en m et

.

Fi na ll y , Lewis arg ue s th at ev en if it was pr ov en th at he pr ov id ed th e he ro in to

Man ni ng
, who th en su pp li ed it to Van am bu rg
, Kell y , an d St ie rm an
, th e red is tri bu ti on

co ns ti tu te s an in te rv en in g cau se of th e in juri es an d de at h fo r whi ch Lewis can no t be

h e l d res po ns ib le

. Not hi ng in Bu rrag e or th e pl ai n la ng ua ge of th e st at ut e li mi t s

res po ns ib il it y

to on ly the las t p ers on to di st rib ut e th e d ru g b efo re t he ha rm oc cu rs

.

II I. Con cl us io n

Fo r th e fo reg oi ng reas on s, t he jud gm en t o f th e d is tri ct co ur t i s af fir m ed

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-1 0-