November 11, 2025, opinions

Posted on by tadbartlett

Designated for publication

  • U.S. v. Horton, 24-50938, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • Duncan, J. (Barksdale, Willett, Duncan) (oral argument withdrawn), criminal, sentencing
    • Affirming 240-month sentence on conviction of possession with intent to distribute fentanyl.
    • Horton pleaded guilty to possessing fentanyl with intent to distribute, and his Presentence Investigation Report originally applied a base offense level of 38 under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(a)(2) because a buyer, L.G., died after consuming fentanyl-laced pills Horton sold. The district court accepted that enhancement and imposed a 240-month sentence. On appeal, the government conceded plain error under United States v. Greenough, as Horton had not been convicted of a crime involving death under § 841(b)(1)(C), and the case was remanded. At resentencing, the court recalculated the range to 10–16 months but, citing § 3553(a) factors, again imposed the 240-month maximum after considering L.G.’s death, though Horton was not allowed to allocute. Horton appealed, arguing that the district court (1) inadequately explained the variance, (2) imposed a substantively unreasonable sentence by considering L.G.’s death, and (3) violated his right to allocution.
    • The Fifth Circuit held that the district court plainly erred by insufficiently explaining its dramatic variance but found the error did not affect Horton’s substantial rights. It further held that the sentence was substantively reasonable because the court permissibly considered L.G.’s death under § 3553(a) without reapplying the § 841(b)(1)(C) enhancement, noting that precedent allows sentencing courts to weigh resulting deaths even when the statutory enhancement is inapplicable. The panel concluded the 240-month sentence was supported by Horton’s repeated distribution of disguised fentanyl and his guilty plea to a related state murder charge. Finally, although the court assumed it was error not to allow allocution, it found no basis for reversal because Horton had already allocuted at the first sentencing, offered no new mitigating information, and his counsel presented mitigating arguments. Accordingly, Horton’s sentence was affirmed.

Unpublished decisions

  • U.S. v. Chavez, 25-10404, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Richman, Southwick, Willett) (no oral argument), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • Hayes v. City of Houston, 24-20426, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Barksdale, Willett, Duncan) (oral argument), sec. 1983
    • Affirming dismissal of claims.
  • Prewitt v. McDaniel, 25-60225, appeal from S.D. Miss.
    • per curiam (Wiener, Willett, Wilson) (no oral argument), sec. 1983
    • Affirming dismissal of sec. 1983 claims and denying motion to disqualify judges.