Opinion ID: 6333805
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Distribution of Fentanyl Resulting in

Text: Death Zayas was convicted on Count 2 of the superseding indictment for distributing the fentanyl that killed Price.11 “Zayas does not deny selling Price drugs.”12 Nor does Zayas argue the government needs to prove that he knew he was selling Price fentanyl.13 Rather, he argues that the evidence is insufficient to prove that the substance he sold her was the fentanyl that caused her death. He claims that the evidence shows only that he sold her heroin. More specifically, Zayas believes that: (1) the record contains no evidence that the drugs he delivered to Price contained fentanyl, (2) there is no evidence connecting him to the blue baggie containing fentanyl found in Price’s bedroom, and (3) that it is at least, if not more likely, that Price obtained the fatal drugs from someone else. We disagree. 8 United States v. Starnes, 583 F.3d 196, 206 (3d Cir. 2009). 9 United States v. Gambone, 314 F.3d 163, 169–70 (3d Cir. 2003) (quotation marks omitted). 10 United States v. Bansal, 663 F.3d 634, 665 (3d Cir. 2011) (quotation marks omitted). 11 See 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C); 18 U.S.C. § 2; Burrage v. United States, 571 U.S. 204, 210, 134 S. Ct. 881, 187 L. Ed. 2d 715 (2014) (“Because the ‘death results’ enhancement increased the minimum and maximum sentences . . . it is an element that must be submitted to the jury and found beyond a reasonable doubt.”). 12 Appellant Br. at 11. 13 See United States v. Barbosa, 271 F.3d 438, 458–59 (3d Cir. 2001) (holding § 841 does not require “the Government [to] prove more than the defendant’s knowledge that he was trafficking in a controlled substance”). 5 Our standard of review of a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence is highly deferential.14 As we noted at the outset, the government’s evidence included text messages between Zayas and Price during the thirty-four-hour period before her death, video footage outside the Price home, and witness testimony, including admissions Zayas made after his arrest. The text messages themselves are evidence of the delivery of controlled substances, negotiating the prices and quantity of drugs, as well as locations of meetings. The relevant texts begin the day before Price’s overdose. July 5, 2016 text messages: 2:06 p.m. Zayas: Hey I made a new contact with damn good shit 2:45 p.m. Price: Like how good 2:59 p.m. Zayas: Not like the best I’ve ever had but good enough to get way higher than intended lol 3:00 p.m. Zayas: I actually get if from the middle man Scotts friend justin 3:02 p.m. Price: How much ... 3:09 p.m. Price: Ima try to get sum cash how much 40? ... 4:41 p.m. Zayas: Yeah 40 but I’d rather give him 60 than give these guys another 30 lol15 July 6, 2016 text messages: 1:13 p.m. Zayas: I’m just getting up I’m a Lil sick so u have anything 1:20 p.m. Price: Na not rite now… Can u pawn Reg tools? 2:06 p.m. Zayas: Not really none of the places really want them 2:09 p.m. Price: I’m working on get cash now u can get? ... 14 United States v. Hart, 273 F.3d 363, 371 (3d Cir. 2001). 15 SApp. at 010–013 (Exs. 3.4–3.7); App. at 540–42. 6 2:32 p.m. Price: I’m getting 50$ in a Lil bit 2:33 p.m. Price: U can get 2:34 p.m. Zayas: Yeah n his stuff is goid 2:34 p.m. Zayas: Good 2:36 p.m. Price: Kk I asked the kid to drop it off b4 3 …..u got a sub tho to I can get like a half? 2:39 p.m. Price: Call now set it uo 3:03 p.m. Zayas: He’s just getting off Hazelton exit now he’s gonna call me back in a minute ... 3:04 p.m. Price: So u wanna meet him here 3:04 p.m. Price: He’s got it on him 3:16 p.m. Price: ? 3:36 p.m. Price: Ask him how long.. My sister will be home soon16 At Price’s request, and consistent with her 2:36 p.m. message, her friend Anthony Almeida placed $50 in the mailbox outside her home between 2:00 p.m. and 3:00 p.m. Video footage shows Zayas’s car parking near Price’s house at 3:55 p.m. on July 6. Zayas was the driver, and an individual identified as Justin Haines was in the passenger seat. Price can be seen approaching the car on the passenger side and engaging in a hand-to-hand transaction as she leans into the car.17 During the interview after his arrest, Zayas told the DEA that he and Haines obtained money from Price to sell her drugs.18 The video also shows Zayas and Haines driving away after Price went to his car. Zayas and Haines then proceeded to another location in Hazleton, Pennsylvania to get drugs to sell to Price. About an hour later, the text messaging between Price and Zayas resumed: 16 SApp. at 015–020 (Exs. 3.9–3.14); App. at 543–47. 17 Zayas admitted that he obtained the suspected heroin with Haines’ assistance and that Haines was with him in the car both times they went to Price’s house. 18 Zayas and Price agreed to “1 n a half 4 50” meaning one and half bundles (fifteen bags) of drugs for $50. SApp. at 019 (Ex. 3.13); App. at 626. The two agreed that Price would get ten bags, and five would go to Zayas as a tip for the effort. App. at 627. 7 4:55 p.m. Zayas: Call u in 1 min 5:06 p.m. Price: Pull into the parking lot 5:07 p.m. Price: Give me a min my sister is leaving19 Zayas returned to Price’s house at 5:07 p.m., between five and seven hours before Price’s death. Again, Price walked to the passenger side of the car where she obtained a bundle, or ten bags of drugs, via another hand-to-hand exchange before returning to her house. Afterward, the two continued to exchange text messages: 5:30 p.m. Price: Please don’t forget about the sub I need it for the morning ….Friday I get paid to so Ima give u either cash or tic for it whichever u prefer 5:31 p.m. Price: There good tho… Thank god u only did 220 Zayas stated in his post-arrest interview that after delivering the drugs to Price he too used some of the same drugs and immediately passed out. When asked if it was common for him to pass out after using heroin “[h]e emphatically stated no, he’s never passed out a day in his life.”21 Zayas’s statement is significant because it suggests that the drugs he and Price used that day were unusually potent. Increased potency is consistent with the presence of fentanyl, rather than the drugs being solely heroin.22 As noted, video footage established that Price left her house only to walk her dog after purchasing drugs from Zayas. At about 9:30 p.m., Price told her mother she was going to bed and went to her bedroom. Around 10:00 p.m., Price’s sister 19 SApp. at 021 (Ex. 3.15); App. at 547. 20 SApp. at 021–022 (Exs. 3.15–3.16); App at 548. A “tic” is short for ticket, which is slang terminology for a bag of heroin or drugs. App. at 649. 21 App. at 633. 22 See United States v. Walker, 922 F.3d 239, 244 n.2 (4th Cir. 2019), cert. granted and judgment vacated on other grounds, Walker v. United States, --- U.S.----, 140 S. Ct. 474, 205 L. Ed. 2d 266 (2019) (noting that “[f]entanyl is sometimes added to heroin to increase its potency, which also increases the risk of an overdose death” (quotation marks omitted)). 8 tried to call Price, however Price did not respond. Around midnight on July 7, Price’s sister arrived home, entered Price’s bedroom and found Price unresponsive and face down in her bed. Emergency personnel were summoned and responding paramedics found Price had no signs of life and concluded she was dead. A forensic pathologist conducted an autopsy on Price the next day. The findings included a fresh needle mark on Price’s right hand that was believed to have occurred at the time of her death. The toxicology report revealed the level of fentanyl in Price’s blood was twenty-four nanograms per mil and a metabolite of fentanyl at twelve nanograms per mil. The testifying pathologist concluded, with 100 percent confidence, that the cause of Price’s death was the injection of fentanyl. Additionally, a forensic toxicologist concluded that heroin did not play a part in Price’s death. It is uncontroverted that Zayas delivered a controlled substance to Price in the hours just before her death. The evidence includes Zayas’s admission that he sold Price drugs about seven hours before she was found dead. During their “drug talk,” she asked him to buy her $30 worth of drugs and he agreed. Zayas, along with Haines, picked up the money from Price at her house, and after getting the drugs, returned, and delivered one bundle (ten bags) of drugs to Price. These facts were not disputed at trial, nor are they at issue on appeal. Furthermore, they are corroborated by Price’s text messages and video footage from security cameras at Price’s house. Since Price was trying to get drugs before she met Zayas and only left home to walk the dog after Zayas sold her drugs, the jury could readily conclude that those drugs were the only drugs she had that night. The evidence is sufficient to demonstrate that she had neither money nor opportunity to obtain drugs from anyone else.23 On the day of her death, Price even told Zayas that she did not have any drugs. When Zayas told Price that he was a “[l]il sick” and asked if she had 23 See United States v. Sumlin, 956 F.3d 879, 891–93 (6th Cir. 2020) (finding sufficient evidence to support a conviction under § 841(a)(1) based on circumstances including the temporal proximity of a drug-related text message exchange). 9 anything, Price responded, “Na not rite now.”24 Moreover, the evidence indicates that Price did not have money to purchase drugs other than the drugs she obtained from Zayas. She texted Zayas, “Ima try to get sum cash how much $40?”25 and “Can u pawn Reg tools? . . . I’m working on get cash now . . . I’m getting 50$ in a Lil bit . . . I asked the kid to drop it off b4 3.”26 Finally, Price reminded Zayas to get her a “sub,” short for suboxone,27 and she would pay him on Friday when she would get paid.28 A DEA agent also testified that in his experience, habitual drug users, like Price, do not store drugs for later use. A reasonable trier of fact could also conclude Price injected the drugs she purchased from Zayas shortly after receiving them and that those drugs contained a fatal dose of fentanyl. Soon after Zayas delivered the drugs to Price she texted him: “There good tho… Thank god u only did 2.”29 This text suggests not only that she used the drugs Zayas gave her a few minutes before, but also alludes to the drug’s potency. As we noted earlier, Zayas also discussed the potency of the drugs he was getting from his source on the day before he delivered drugs to Price. He described them as “damn good shit” and “good enough to get way higher than intended.”30 Zayas also told the DEA that when he took the drugs, after delivering some to Price, he passed out. He said he never passes out after taking heroin. This clearly allows a rational trier of fact to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Zayas delivered drugs containing a fatal dose of fentanyl to Price, and she died because she ingested them.31 Although Zayas may not have 24 SApp. at 015 (Ex. 3.9); App. at 543; see also United States v. Ross, 990 F.3d 636, 639 (8th Cir. 2021) (concluding that a drug user’s urgent desire to ingest drugs undermines a claim that they already had drugs in their possession). 25 SApp. at 012 (Ex. 3.6); App. at 542. 26 SApp. at 015–018 (Exs. 3.9–3.12); App. at 543–45. 27 Suboxone is a medication designed to reduce opioid withdrawal symptoms along with the desire to use opioids. United States v. Brizuela, 962 F.3d 784, 787 (4th Cir. 2020). 28 SApp. at 021–022 (Exs. 3.15–3.16); App at 548. 29 SApp. at 022 (Ex. 3.16); App. at 548. 30 SApp. at 010–011 (Exs. 3.4–3.5); App. at 540–41. 31 See United States v. Davis, 970 F.3d 650, 658 (6th Cir. 2020) (holding it is rational for a jury to infer that the drug at 10 known that the drugs he delivered to Price contained fentanyl, his subjective belief is simply irrelevant.32 Zayas’s argument that the evidence is insufficient because the record instead suggests a connection between the blue glassine bag, found near Price’s body, and a drug dealer other than himself is also unavailing. He contends the evidence could be interpreted to suggest that “drugs delivered by [another drug dealer] caused Price’s death.”33 Zayas argues this drug dealer, only identified as “Dee,” was more likely to have supplied the fentanyl to Price than he was. This assertion is mostly based on the fentanyl residue found in a blue glassine baggie near Price’s body. Although around 100 blue and white glassine baggies were found in Price’s bedroom, only a single blue bag contained any residue and it was the only one submitted to the laboratory. Testing confirmed it was fentanyl residue. Text messages between Price and Dee five days before her death show that Price asked Dee, “U have the blue one’s,” referring to blue glassine baggies.34 Zayas told the DEA immediately following his arrest that he believed the baggies he delivered to Price on the day of her death were white, but he was not sure. Zayas seizes upon that statement to argue that there is no evidence connecting him to the blue baggie found in Price’s home. He also relies on the prior text exchange between Price and Dee to claim that Price got the blue baggie from Dee and not from him. But this argument misses the point.35 issue was fentanyl, rather than heroin, based on its high potency). 32 See Barbosa, 271 F.3d at 458–59 (holding that the government need not prove the defendant’s knowledge that he was trafficking in the precise controlled substance at issue to sustain a conviction under § 841(a)). 33 Appellant Br. at 20. 34 SApp. at 032 (Ex. 4.9); App. at 664. 35 See United States v. Caraballo-Rodriguez, 726 F.3d 418, 432 (3d Cir. 2013) (“It is up to the jury—not the district court judge or our Court—to examine the evidence and draw inferences.”). 11 Text messages between Price and Dee do not negate the evidence against Zayas nor diminish its sufficiency.36 “Reversing the jury’s conclusion simply because another inference is possible—or even equally plausible—is inconsistent with the scope of our inquiry for review of sufficiency of the evidence challenges.”37 Instead, only when the record contains no evidence, however it is weighed, from which the jury could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, will we overturn a verdict.38 As we have explained, the jury could reasonably conclude that Price did not have any drugs before she purchased the drugs from Zayas just before her death. The jury could also reasonably conclude that those drugs contained fentanyl because both Price and Zayas had discussed the drugs’ unusual potency. There was clearly something different about the drugs that Price obtained from Zayas the night she overdosed, and it is mere speculation to argue that she had drugs from someone other than Zayas. In fact, the evidence is to the contrary. Price’s own text messages support that she did not have any drugs the night of her death before she obtained drugs from Zayas. The evidence is clearly sufficient to establish Zayas’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.39