Opinion ID: 613517
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: United States v. Patterson, 38 F.3d 139 (4th Cir. 1994)

Text: In Patterson, the Fourth Circuit held that reasonable foreseeability is not an element of the death results from sentence enhancement in § 841(b)(1)(C). Patterson, 38 F.3d at 145. The two defendants in Patterson pled guilty to unlawful distribution of controlled substances, but reserved the right to contest at sentencing whether victim Carroll's death resulted from their distribution of controlled substances. Id. at 141. [10] The sentencing court found that Carroll's death resulted from the drugs brought by defendant Patterson to the party. Id. at 141-42. On appeal, the defendants argued that the district court erred in not requiring the government to prove that Carroll's death was a foreseeable result of the defendants' distribution of controlled substances before applying the enhanced penalty in § 841(b)(1)(C). Id. at 142-43. The defendants argued that (1) the statute imposes a `reasonable foreseeability of death' requirement, and (2) the Government failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove that the death of Carroll was, in fact, a reasonably foreseeable consequence of their actions. Id. at 145. Rejecting this claim, the Fourth Circuit concluded that because we find that § 841(b)(1)(C) imposes no reasonable foreseeability requirement, we need not address the question whether Carroll's death was reasonably foreseeable to the defendants. Id. The Fourth Circuit explained that the plain language of § 841(b)(1)(C) does not require, nor does it indicate, that prior to applying the enhanced sentence, the district court must find that death resulting from the use of a drug distributed by a defendant was a reasonably foreseeable event. Id. Instead, [t]he statute puts drug dealers and users on clear notice that their sentences will be enhanced if people die from using the drugs they distribute. Id. The Fourth Circuit concluded that: Where serious bodily injury or death results from the distribution of certain drugs, Congress has elected to enhance a defendant's sentence regardless of whether the defendant knew or should have known that death would result. Id. The Fourth Circuit refused to second-guess [Congress's] unequivocal choice. Id.