United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 20-2821

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Devontae Horton

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant

 ____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Iowa - Cedar Rapids

 ____________

Submitted: June 14, 2021

Filed: July 20, 2021 

[Unpublished]

____________

Before LOKEN, WOLLMAN, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

Devontae Horton was convicted after a jury trial of conspiracy to distribute

between 100 grams and 1 kilogram of heroin, and distribution of a controlled
substance. The district court1

 imposed a 120-month term of imprisonment to be

followed by five years of supervised release. Horton appeals claiming the evidence

was insufficient to support the drug quantity calculation and his sentence is

substantively unreasonable. We affirm.

Drug quantity calculations are reviewed for clear error, under a preponderance

of the evidence standard. United States v. Walker, 688 F.3d 416, 420 (8th Cir. 2012). 

“When calculating drug quantity, ‘the sentencing court may consider all transactions

known or reasonably foreseeable to the defendant that were made in furtherance of

the conspiracy.’” United States v. Sainz Navarrete, 955 F.3d 713, 720 (8th Cir. 2020)

(quoting United States v. Plancarte-Vazquez, 450 F.3d 848, 852 (8th Cir.2006)). 

When “the quantity of drugs was established through witnesses’ testimony, the issue

becomes one of credibility.” United States v. Quintana, 340 F.3d 700, 702 (8th Cir.

2003). “It is . . . well established that in sentencing matters a district court’s

assessment of witness credibility is quintessentially a judgment call and virtually

unassailable on appeal.” Id. (quotation omitted); see also United States v. Janis, 995

F.3d 647, 651-52 (8th Cir. 2021). 

The district court’s assessment of the evidence was based on its “clear”

memory of the proceedings. At sentencing, the district court gave a detailed account

of its credibility findings and how those findings impacted Horton’s dates of

participation in the conspiracy and drug quantity. Horton’s argument that the district

court based the drug quantity calculation on acquitted conduct is unavailing. “[A]

district court may impose a sentence based on a drug quantity determination greater

than that found by the jury so long as the sentence does not exceed the statutory

maximum of the convicted offense and the district court’s calculation is supported by 

1The Honorable C.J. Williams, United States District Judge for the Northern

District of Iowa.

-2-
sufficient evidence.” United States v. Webb, 545 F.3d 673, 677 (8th Cir. 2008). 

Because the record contains sufficient evidence to support the drug quantity

calculation, we find no error. 

Horton also argues his sentence is substantively unreasonable. After careful

review, we find the district court gave appropriate weight to the factors set forth in

18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), adequately explained the sentence, and made no clear error of

judgment. United States v. King, 898 F.3d 797, 810 (8th Cir. 2018) (standard of

review; sentence was substantively reasonable after upholding drug quantity

calculation). Horton’s sentence is not substantively unreasonable.

We affirm.

______________________________

-3-