Opinion ID: 6111649
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Count 4: David Grzywacz

Text: Sufficient evidence supported the jury’s conclusion that Grzywacz overdosed on drugs he bought from “Polo.” Grzywacz called the x5598 “Polo” number eight times on the day he overdosed. He used the drugs right away, and the next thing he remembers is waking up in the ambulance. When the paramedics arrived, he was taking only four breaths per minute, which is not life-sustaining. Paramedics administered Narcan, and Grzywacz’s breathing immediately improved. Dr. Mills testified that his medical condition was consistent with an opioid overdose and that he likely would have died without medical intervention. Again, Tempo asks us to discredit Grzywacz’s testimony because he is “a twice convicted felon,” he is a “daily heroin user,” and he seemingly received a lesser sentence in his own criminal case after he cooperated against Tempo. (Def. Tempo Br. at 31). Again, we do not entertain such credibility arguments. See Emmons, F.4th at 616. Tempo also highlights that Grzywacz “us[ed] the same syringe for over a month” to inject drugs. (Def. Tempo Br. at 32). He thus argues that “[t]here was no way to determine if residue of prior uses of other drugs remained in the syringe barrel or needle, and if they contributed to [Grzywacz’s] overdose.” (Id.) We generally reject these kinds of arguments as mere “speculative possibilities already rejected by the jury.” United States v. Assfy, — F. App’x —, No. 20-1630, 2021 WL 2935359, at  (6th Cir. July 13, 2021) (quoting United States v. Simer, 835 F. App’x 60, 65–66 (6th Cir. 2020)). But, even if residue from other drugs got mixed up in the needle, that finding does not preclude but-for causation, which is met “where use of the controlled substance ‘combines with other factors to produce’” the overdose. Volkman, 797 F.3d at 392 (quoting Burrage, 571 U.S. at 211). Nos. 19-2217/2221/20-1177 United States v. Sadler, et al. Page 31