United States v. Edward Rodriguez

[PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
JANUARY 15, 2002
No. 00-10487 THOMAS K. KAHN
________________________ CLERK

D. C. Docket No. 99-00174 CR-ORL-18C

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

EDWARD RODRIGUEZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
_________________________
(January 15, 2002)

Before ANDERSON, Chief Judge, EDMONDSON and RONEY, Circuit Judges.

ANDERSON, Chief Judge:
 Defendant Edward Rodriguez pled guilty to one charge of conspiracy to

possess heroin with the intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a) and

846, and two counts of possession of heroin with the intent to distribute, in

violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a). On January 19, 2000, the district court sentenced

Rodriguez to twenty years in prison and five years of supervised release.

Rodriguez appeals his sentence, and we affirm.

I. BACKGROUND

On August 11, 1999, Samuel Velez-Gomez (“Gomez”) sold heroin to

Rodriguez. Rodriguez then sold one gram of heroin to James Warren Elliot, Jr.

(“Elliot”). Elliot then entered a hotel room and asked two men inside the room

how to use the heroin. The two men told Elliot that they were not sure how to use

it. Elliot then proceeded to snort some of the heroin.

That evening, a hotel employee found Elliot unconscious and snoring loudly

in a hallway of the hotel. The employee found Elliot's roommate, James Gann

(“Gann”), and the two men dragged Elliot to his hotel room and placed him on his

bed. Approximately one hour later, Gann returned to the hotel room and

discovered Elliot cold and without a pulse. Paramedics took Elliot to the hospital,

where Elliot was pronounced dead. A medical examiner determined that Elliot

2
died as a result of cardiorespiratory arrest due to heroin toxicity. Elliot's blood

contained .351 milligrams per liter of morphine, which exceeded the .070 to .350

milligrams per liter lethal range for a non-tolerant user.

The next day, Gann, who was cooperating with police, met Rodriguez to

purchase heroin. Rodriguez called Gomez, and when Gomez arrived, the police

arrested both Rodriguez and Gomez.

In his guilty plea, Rodriguez admitted that he sold heroin to Elliot on August

11, 1999. At sentencing, Rodriguez admitted that Elliot had ingested the heroin

that Rodriguez had sold to him and that the heroin was in Elliot's system when he

died. Rodriguez objected, however, to being held accountable for Elliot's death,

arguing that the hotel employee and Gann could have prevented Elliot's death if

they had called the paramedics when they observed Elliot unconscious in the

hallway. The district court overruled Rodriguez' objection, and found that, but for

ingesting the heroin provided by Rodriguez, Elliot would not have died. The

district court sentenced Rodriguez to twenty years in prison and five years of

supervised release.

II. DISCUSSION

Rodriguez challenges his sentence on two grounds. He first contends that

3
the district court violated his due process rights and right to trial by jury when it

enhanced his sentence pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(C),1 because the court

found only by a preponderance of the evidence, rather than beyond a reasonable

doubt, that "death or serious bodily injury" had resulted from Rodriguez’ offense.

This argument raises the issue of the constitutional protections recently recognized

by the Supreme Court in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S. Ct. 2348

(2000).2

Rodriguez also contends that the district court erred in enhancing his

sentence under § 841(b)(1)(C) and U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1, because there was

insufficient evidence to connect his offense with Elliot's death. Specifically, he

argues that the intervening acts of the hotel employee and Gann severed the causal

connection, because they could have saved Elliot's life if they had called the

1
21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(C) provides that, in the case of a heroin offense, the
defendant "shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not more than 20 years and if death
or serious bodily injury results from the use of such substance shall be sentenced to a term of
imprisonment of not less than twenty years or more than life."
2
Rodriquez also argues that the district court violated his due process rights and
right to trial by jury when it enhanced his sentence pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1, because “death
or serious bodily injury” was not established beyond a reasonable doubt. U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(a)(2)
sets the base offense level at 38 if the defendant is convicted under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(C)
"and the offense of conviction establishes that death or serious bodily injury resulted from the
use of the substance." However, Apprendi does not affect the district court’s determinations
under the Sentencing Guidelines. United States v. Sanchez, 269 F.3d 1250, 1262 (11th Cir.
2001); United States v. Harris, 244 F.3d 828, 830 (11th Cir. 2001); United States v. Nealy, 232
F.3d 825, 829 n.3 (11th Cir. 2000).

4
paramedics when they saw Elliot unconscious in the hallway rather than placing

Elliot on a bed and leaving him alone for approximately one hour.

A. Apprendi

Rodriguez first argues that his sentence was improperly enhanced because

the district court employed a preponderance of the evidence standard, rather than a

reasonable doubt standard, in ascertaining whether Elliot's death resulted from his

use of the heroin that Rodriguez admitted selling to him. Because Rodriguez did

not raise the issue of the district court's failure to find "death or serious bodily

injury" beyond a reasonable doubt below, we review it only for plain error. See

United States v. Candelario, 240 F.3d 1300, 1306 (11th Cir. 2001).

In Apprendi, the Supreme Court stated that, "[o]ther than the fact of a prior

conviction, any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed

statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable

doubt." 530 U.S. at 490, 120 S. Ct. at 2362-63. In this case, there is no Apprendi

error, because the sentence that Rodriguez received – twenty years – does not

exceed the maximum sentence authorized under § 841(b)(1)(C) for a heroin

offense without reference to "death or serious bodily injury." United States v.

Sanchez, 269 F.3d 1250, 1268 (11th Cir. 2001) (holding that “Apprendi has no

effect on cases in which a defendant’s actual sentence falls within the range

5
prescribed by the statute for the crime of conviction.”) (emphasis in original);

United States v. McIntosh, 236 F.3d 968, 976 (8th Cir. 2001) (where the district

court enhanced the defendant’s sentence under § 841(b)(1)(A) after finding by a

preponderance of the evidence that “death or serious bodily injury” had resulted,

holding that Apprendi did not apply because the defendant was sentenced to 20

years’ imprisonment, which is the authorized maximum sentence under §

841(b)(1)(C) without any enhancement).3 Therefore, Rodriguez’ Apprendi claim

fails.4

B. Causal Connection

Rodriguez next contends that there was insufficient evidence to connect his

offense with Elliot's death. He argues that the hotel employee and Gann were

intervening factors that severed the "causal connection" between his offense and

Elliot's death because they did not call the paramedics when they observed Elliot

3
It is possible that the district court would have sentenced Rodriguez to a term of
imprisonment slightly less than 240 months had it not been for the 240-month mandatory
minimum for a § 841(b)(1)(C) offense where “death or serious bodily injury” resulted.
However, we need not address this issue, as it was not raised by Rodriguez in his brief on appeal.
See, e.g., Marek v. Singletary, 62 F.3d 1295, 1298 n.2 (11th Cir. 1995) (“Issues not clearly
raised in the briefs are considered abandoned.”). Moreover, “Apprendi has no application to
cases in which statutory sentencing factors trigger a mandatory minimum sentence.” Sanchez,
269 F.3d at 1269 (citing McMillan v. Pennsylvania, 477 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 2411 (1986), which
Apprendi, 530 U.S. at 487 n.13, 120 S.Ct. at 2361 n.13, expressly declined to overrule).

4
Nor does the five-year supervised release portion of Rodriguez' sentence
constitute Apprendi error. See Sanchez, 269 F.3d at 1287-88.

6
unconscious in the hallway. The district court enhanced Rodriguez' sentence,

because it found that, but for Elliot ingesting the heroin provided by Rodriguez,

Elliot would not have died.

We review a district court's findings of fact for clear error and its application

of the Sentencing Guidelines de novo. See United States v. Jamieson, 202 F.3d

1293, 1295 (11th Cir. 2000). Rodriguez admitted at sentencing that he sold heroin

to Elliot and that the heroin was in Elliot's system when he died. The medical

examiner determined that Elliot died as a result of cardiorespiratory arrest due to

heroin toxicity. Based on this evidence, we conclude that the district court's factual

finding – that, but for Elliot ingesting the heroin provided by Rodriguez, Elliot

would not have died – is supported by the record and does not amount to clear

error.

Even assuming arguendo that an intervening cause of death could foreclose

application of the “death or serious bodily injury” enhancement under

§841(b)(1)(C) and U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1,5 Rodriguez has failed to adduce facts

5
While other circuits have held that the “death or serious bodily injury”
enhancement contained in § 841(b)(1) does not require a finding of proximate cause or
foreseeability of death, these circuits have not addressed whether there is an intervening cause
exception to the enhancement provision. See e.g., United States v. McIntosh, 236 F.3d 968 (8th
Cir. 2000) (holding that § 841(b)(1)(A)’s enhancement applies “without regard to the principles
of proximate cause or the foreseeability of death or serious bodily injury,” but declining to reach
the issue of whether an intervening cause of death resulting from a controlled substance
forecloses application of the statutory enhancement); United States v. Robinson, 167 F.3d 824

7
showing an intervening cause of death sufficient to relieve him of liability for the

death. Generally, one may be held criminally liable for a victim’s death even

where medical negligence or mistreatment also contributed to the victim’s death.

See Carolyn Kelly MacWilliam, Annotation, Homicide: Liability Where Death

Immediately Results From Treatment or Mistreatment of Injury Inflicted by

Defendant, 50 A.L.R. 5th 467 (1997). In order to be entitled to a defense, there

must have been gross medical negligence and such gross negligence must have

been “the sole cause of the victim’s death.” Id. See also 40 Am. Jur. 2d Homicide

§ 18 (1999) (“Negligent treatment or neglect of an injury will not excuse a

wrongdoer unless the treatment or neglect was the sole cause of death . . . .”); Rose

v. State, 591 So. 2d 195, 196 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991) (“‘[A] defendant cannot escape

the penalties for an act which in point of fact produces death, which death might

possibly have been averted by some possible mode of treatment. The true doctrine

is that, where the wound is in itself dangerous to life, mere erroneous treatment of

it or of the wounded man suffering from it will afford the defendant no protection

(3d Cir. 1999) (holding that § 841(b)(1)(C) has no “foreseeability of death” requirement but
declining to decide whether § 841(b)(1)(C) includes an intervening or superseding cause
exception); United States v. Patterson, 38 F.3d 139, 146 (4th Cir. 1994) (holding that §
841(b)(1)(C) does not contain a reasonable foreseeability requirement but declining to address
appellant’s argument that there is an intervening cause exception to the application of §
841(b)(1)(C)). In light of our disposition, we too need not decide whether there can be an
intervening cause exception to the enhancement provision.

8
....’”) (quoting Hallman v. State, 371 So. 2d 482, 485 (Fla. 1979)).

Rodriguez points to no evidence showing that Elliot’s death resulted solely

from grossly negligent actions taken by Gann and the hotel employee. Instead, the

evidence shows that Elliot died as a result of cardiorespiratory arrest due to heroin

toxicity, and Rodriguez admitted that he gave Elliot the heroin and that the heroin

was in Elliot’s system when he died. There is also no evidence that Elliot would

have lived had the hotel employee or Gann called the paramedics immediately

upon discovering Elliot unconscious in the hallway. In fact, in his brief, Rodriguez

concedes that “[i]t is an unknown question as to whether or not [Elliot’s] life could

have been saved if he had been immediately taken to the hospital and given

appropriate and proper medical treatment at the time that his body was discovered

... in the hallway of the hotel.”

It is also a basic principle of criminal law that foreseeable negligent acts of a

third party do not sever the chain of causation. As the Second Circuit stated:

In many situations giving rise to criminal liability, the death or injury
is not directly caused by the acts of the defendant but rather results
from intervening forces or events, such as negligent medical treatment
. . . or the negligent or intentional acts of a third party. Where such
intervening events are foreseeable and naturally result from a
perpetrator’s criminal conduct, the law considers the chain of legal
causation unbroken and holds the perpetrator criminally responsible
for the resulting harm.

United States v. Guillette, 547 F.2d 743, 749 (2d Cir. 1976). In this case, the

9
actions taken by Gann and the hotel employee when they discovered Elliot snoring

in the hallway were foreseeable and naturally resulted from Rodriguez having sold

Elliot the heroin. Their actions did not break the chain of legal causation.

Therefore, even if there were an intervening cause exception to the

enhancement contained in § 841(b)(1)(C) and U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1, which we need

not decide here, Rodriguez has adduced no facts entitling him to the benefit of such

an exception.

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Rodriguez’ sentence is

AFFIRMED.

10