United States v. Ralston

110 F.4th 909

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gregory D. RALSTON, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 23-3651

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit

Decided and Filed: August 12, 2024

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio at Cleveland. No. 1:20-cr-00330-1—John R. Adams, District Judge.

ON BRIEF: Travis A. Rossman, ROSSMAN LAW, PLLC, Barbourville, Kentucky, for Appellant. Laura McMullen Ford, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, Cleveland, Ohio, for Appellee.

Before: GILMAN, LARSEN, and STRANCH, Circuit Judges.

OPINION

RONALD LEE GILMAN, Circuit Judge.

After a four-day jury trial, Gregory D. Ralston was found guilty of distributing and possessing with the intent to distribute a fentanyl-containing substance. He was, however, acquitted of causing the serious bodily injury of another by distributing the fentanyl.

Ralston challenges the district court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence without holding an evidentiary hearing, the court's limitation of his cross-examination of two government witnesses under the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment, and the procedural and substantive reasonableness of his 180-month sentence. For the reasons set forth below, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court. But because of an intervening amendment in the Sentencing Guidelines during the pendency of this appeal, we REMAND the case to the district court for consideration of whether Ralston is entitled to a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c).

I. BACKGROUND

A. Factual background

On May 14, 2020, Ramon Villegas's niece arrived at her uncle's home in Lorain, Ohio to find him unconscious on the front porch. He had nearly died from a drug overdose after injecting drugs that he had bought the previous day from Ralston. Villegas believed that he had purchased pure heroin, but what he injected was laced with fentanyl. After discovering her uncle's condition, Villegas's niece immediately contacted the police, who dispatched paramedics for assistance. The responding paramedics determined that Villegas was suffering from an opioid overdose and administered three doses of Narcan, a drug used to resuscitate those who have overdosed from opioids. Villegas was transported to a local hospital for further treatment.

Meanwhile, local police were sent to Villegas's home to investigate the circumstances of his overdose. Detective Craig Payne, one of the responding officers, spoke with Villegas's girlfriend and Villegas's niece in an effort to determine who had sold the drugs to Villegas. Villegas's girlfriend gave Payne access to Villegas's cell phone, which contained text messages suggesting that Villegas had purchased $40 worth of drugs from "Roy" the day before. Further investigation revealed that "Roy Ralston" was the likely drug supplier. The police used law-enforcement databases and Facebook to connect the name "Roy Ralston" to Gregory Ralston. Payne then impersonated Villegas and sent a text message to the number associated with Ralston, asking to purchase more narcotics.

Ralston fell for Payne's subterfuge and agreed to meet in the parking lot of a local restaurant to conduct the sale. Payne and other officers arrived at the restaurant, identified Ralston, and arrested him. The officers then searched Ralston and his vehicle, recovering a cell phone that they confirmed to be the cell phone that Payne had texted. They also recovered and a plastic bag containing 4.7 grams of a tan substance containing fentanyl.

Ralston was taken to the Lorain Police Department after his arrest, and Payne searched the contents of Ralston's cell phone after obtaining a search warrant. Payne recovered text messages between Ralston's cell phone and Villegas's regarding other drug transactions. After signing a waiver of his rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), Ralston confirmed that he had gone to the restaurant parking lot to sell drugs to Villegas. He was then transported to the Lorain County Jail.

B. Procedural background

Ralston was initially indicted for possessing fentanyl with the intent to distribute the drug, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(C). A Second Superseding Indictment added the count of distributing a controlled substance, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(C), and an enhanced statutory penalty for causing serious bodily injury to another, under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(C). The new count required the government to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that (1) Ralston sold fentanyl to Villegas, and (2) that the drug caused Villegas serious bodily injury.

Ralston moved to suppress the evidence recovered from his arrest, including the fentanyl, his cell phone, and the statements that he made to the police. He argued that the police lacked probable cause to arrest him or to search his vehicle. The district court initially granted Ralston's request for an evidentiary hearing on the motion and scheduled it for January 11, 2021. After granting motions to continue the evidentiary hearing and other delays, however, the district court denied Ralston's motion without holding an evidentiary hearing.

Ralston then pleaded not guilty and proceeded to a jury trial. The government called Payne as a witness and questioned him regarding the events of May 14, 2020. Payne testified that, during his investigation, he had interviewed Villegas and had informed him that Villegas would not be charged with drug possession resulting from the overdose. Villegas, according to Payne, had also sold prescription drugs to Ralston.

Payne confirmed during cross-examination that he had elected not to charge Villegas with either possession or trafficking of illicit drugs. Ralston's attorney probed Payne on this point and, when he asked Payne what prior convictions Villegas had, the government objected. The district court sustained the objection and instructed Ralston's attorney to refrain from suggesting that Villegas was given a break for selling drugs while Ralston was not. Instead, the district court suggested that Ralston's attorney could cross-examine Villegas directly regarding Villegas's prior convictions.

The government questioned Payne during redirect, and Payne testified that, without the presence of physical drugs, he was unlikely to pursue charges against someone for drug-trafficking offenses. During a sidebar, the district court also reiterated its reluctance to allow questions regarding why Villegas was not charged with any crime. After Payne's testimony, the court instructed the jury that "[w]hether Mr. Villegas was charged or should have been charged is not an issue for you to decide or to consider. It's not relevant in the case here. The only relevant issue for you to decide is the two charges against the defendant."

The government also called Villegas as a witness. Villegas testified that he bought heroin from Ralston, and that the drugs he bought from Ralston on May 13, 2020 caused his overdose the next day. He maintained, however, that he did not believe that Ralston had intentionally tried to kill him, and that he harbored no animosity toward Ralston.

The May 14, 2020 overdose was not Villegas's first. Instead, he recounted overdosing at least 14 times. Villegas further testified that he had previously sold drugs, had hidden his drug relapse from his family after a long period of sobriety, and had been previously convicted of identity theft, forgery, and theft.

The district court informed the jury during final instructions that they could consider Villegas's prior convictions and other testimony in determining whether to believe his overall testimony. The jury found Ralston guilty on both the possession and distribution charges, but acquitted him of the enhancement for serious bodily injury.

One month before sentencing, the district court entered an order indicating that it was considering a possible upward variance of Ralston's sentence based upon certain sentencing factors enumerated in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Pretrial Services calculated Ralston's recommended sentence pursuant to the United States Sentencing Guidelines (the Guidelines). The resulting Guidelines range was 27 to 33 months of imprisonment.

Neither party objected to the presentence report. The government, however, argued that a sentence within the Guidelines range was insufficient to satisfy the § 3553(a) factors, and instead asked the district court to impose a sentence greater than the Guidelines range. Specifically, the government pointed to Ralston's 2018 conviction for corrupting another with drugs, reckless homicide, tampering with evidence, and trafficking in drugs. That conviction related to a 2017 incident in which Ralston had sold drugs that caused an overdose death. While the victim was nonresponsive, Ralston and a codefendant loaded her body into a car, dumped her body in the woods, and hid evidence of their involvement. Ralston was convicted of those offenses in 2018 by a state court and sentenced to two years of imprisonment. He was released in March 2019, however, and began a three-year period of parole. The present case arose just 14 months after Ralston's release from prison and while he was still on parole for the 2018 conviction.

At sentencing, the district court recounted the 27-to-33-months Guidelines range while noting that the statutory maximum for the conviction was 240 months. See 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(C). The government reiterated that it was seeking an upward variance from the Guidelines range. Ralston's attorney urged against any upward variance and argued—as he had in his sentencing memorandum—that Ralston's sentence should be based on his acceptance of responsibility as shown by his offer to plead guilty to both counts of the indictment without the enhancement (which offer the government had declined to accept). After hearing Ralston's allocution, the district court stated its reasoning behind Ralston's sentence.

...