Introduction

In an opinion that tightly applies preservation rules and underscores the Sixth Circuit’s deference to district-court sentencing in fentanyl death cases, the court affirmed the convictions and sentence of Terrance Lamont Hines. Hines was convicted by a jury on eight counts tied to drug trafficking and weapons possession after a fentanyl distribution chain—traced by the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation (TBI)—led from a reseller to Hines. The overdose death of a user, Terri Garber, followed a purchase of fentanyl-laced heroin in December 2020.

On appeal, Hines challenged (1) the sufficiency of the evidence as to certain counts and (2) the substantive reasonableness of his life sentence (plus a consecutive 60 months under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)). The Sixth Circuit held that Hines’s sufficiency arguments were waived because they were not specifically preserved in his Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 29 motion in the district court, and concluded that his within-Guidelines life sentence—imposed in a case where drug distribution resulted in death—was substantively reasonable under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).

Summary of the Opinion

• Preservation and Waiver under Rule 29: The court reaffirmed that a defendant who specifies particular grounds in a Rule 29 motion preserves only those grounds for appeal; any other sufficiency grounds are waived. Because Hines’s appellate sufficiency arguments differed from those raised below, they were not reviewable.
• Substantive Reasonableness: The court affirmed a life sentence within the Guidelines range (360 months to life) for conspiracy to distribute at least 400 grams of fentanyl where death resulted, plus a mandatory consecutive 60 months under § 924(c). Applying the presumption of reasonableness for within-Guidelines sentences, the court held that the district court’s careful weighing of § 3553(a) factors—emphasizing the fatality, the seriousness of fentanyl trafficking, possession of a firearm, criminal history, and the need for deterrence—was not an abuse of discretion.
• Bottom Line: Convictions and sentence affirmed.

Factual and Procedural Background

Evidence at trial showed that beginning in September 2020, Hines supplied wholesale quantities of illegal drugs to a reseller, Robin Hutchins, in Kingsport, Tennessee, becoming her sole supplier by December 2020. Hutchins supplied several users, including Adam Presnell. On December 3, 2020, Presnell sold heroin laced with fentanyl to two users, one of whom—Terri Garber—was later found unresponsive. Despite paramedics’ attempts, Garber never regained a pulse.

A forensic pathologist, Dr. Andrea Orvik, determined the cause of death to be fentanyl and oxycodone intoxication and testified that Garber’s blood contained more than four times the recognized lethal level of fentanyl—enough to be fatal even without oxycodone. The TBI traced the supply chain back to Hines through controlled buys using Hutchins as a cooperator, during which Hines sold approximately 2.5 ounces of fentanyl. Searches of Hines’s residence, recording studio, and vehicle recovered two cell phones, two firearms, cash, packaging and cutting agents, and 93 grams of fentanyl (street value exceeding $11,000) from the studio.

A grand jury charged Hines in eight counts across drug trafficking and weapons possession. A jury convicted him on all counts. Following a calculated advisory Guidelines range of 360 months to life (offense level 38, criminal history category VI), the district court imposed life for the conspiracy count (death resulting), concurrent terms including thirty years for other drug counts and fifteen years for ACCA-qualifying offenses, and a mandatory consecutive five-year term under § 924(c), for an aggregate sentence of life plus sixty months.

Analysis

1) Preservation of Sufficiency Challenges Under Rule 29

Precedents Cited

• United States v. Graham, 622 F.3d 445, 448 (6th Cir. 2010): Denials of Rule 29 motions are reviewed de novo—when properly preserved.
• United States v. Chance, 306 F.3d 356, 368 (6th Cir. 2002): If no Rule 29 motion is made, the Sixth Circuit “will not consider” sufficiency challenges on appeal.
• United States v. Dandy, 998 F.2d 1344, 1356–57 (6th Cir. 1993): Specificity matters—grounds not specified in a Rule 29 motion are waived and cannot be raised on appeal.
• United States v. Osborne, 886 F.3d 604, 618 (6th Cir. 2018): Once waived, a sufficiency challenge will not be considered on appeal.

Application to Hines

Hines filed a Rule 29 motion in the district court on two specific grounds: (1) that any conspiracy finding should have been limited to distributing between 40 and 400 grams (not 400 grams or more), and (2) that he should not receive a “death enhancement” because the government had not proven he was the source of the fatal fentanyl. He did not pursue either of those two issues on appeal. Instead, he argued for the first time that no conspiracy existed at all and separately challenged his two ACCA-related weapons convictions on sufficiency grounds.

The Sixth Circuit emphasized that a defendant preserves only the specific grounds raised in a Rule 29 motion; “all grounds not specified in the motion are waived.” Because the new arguments on appeal were not presented in the Rule 29 motion, they were waived and not reviewable. The court reiterated that, in these circumstances, it “lacks the ability to review—let alone reverse—the district court’s ruling” on those new theories.

Legal Reasoning and Principles Applied

• Specificity Requirement: Rule 29 preservation is claim-specific. A general Rule 29 motion does not preserve all conceivable sufficiency challenges. Counsel must identify each element or count on which evidence is allegedly insufficient.
• Waiver vs. Forfeiture: The opinion treats unraised grounds as “waived,” not merely “forfeited,” foreclosing even plain-error review in the Sixth Circuit’s approach as reflected in Chance, Dandy, and Osborne.
• Appellate Consistency: Even when a defendant did preserve some grounds at trial, switching to different sufficiency theories on appeal abandons the preserved issues and waives the new ones.

Impact

• Defense Strategy: Defense counsel must articulate, count-by-count, element-by-element Rule 29 arguments at trial and then press the same arguments on appeal. Failure to do so will likely foreclose review.
• Trial Practice: District courts can expect that the Sixth Circuit will strictly enforce preservation rules, reducing the risk of reversal on unpreserved sufficiency theories.
• Appellate Outcomes: The decision reinforces that appellate courts will not rescue unpreserved sufficiency claims under the guise of plain-error review in this context.

2) Substantive Reasonableness of a Life Sentence in a Fentanyl-Death Case

Precedents and Framework Cited

• United States v. Rayyan, 885 F.3d 436, 442 (6th Cir. 2018): A substantive reasonableness challenge asserts that the sentence is too long because the district court misweighed § 3553(a) factors.
• United States v. Overmeyer, 663 F.3d 862, 864 (6th Cir. 2011): District courts have considerable discretion in sentencing; appellate review is highly deferential.
• United States v. Vonner, 516 F.3d 382, 389–90 (6th Cir. 2008) (en banc): Within-Guidelines sentences are presumed reasonable on appeal.
• United States v. Adkins, 729 F.3d 559, 571–72 (6th Cir. 2013): Appellate courts do not reweigh § 3553(a) factors absent unreasonableness.
• Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 347 (2007): When both the Sentencing Commission’s guidance and the sentencing judge’s assessment align—a “double determination”—reasonableness is more likely.
• Statutory and Guidelines References: 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A) (authorizes life imprisonment when death results); U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(a)(2) (base offense level 38 if death results); U.S.S.G. § 5K2.1 (policy statement recognizing potential upward departures when death results); 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i) (mandatory consecutive term).

District Court’s Reasoning

The district court calculated a Guidelines range of 360 months to life and sentenced at the top (life) for the conspiracy count in which death resulted, citing:

• Seriousness and Harm: Fentanyl’s lethality and its specific role in Garber’s death; the court noted the broader fentanyl crisis nationally and within Tennessee.
• Aggravating Conduct: The involvement of firearms and the scale of trafficking.
• History and Characteristics: Hines’s extensive criminal history, including prior drug offenses, and a perceived lack of remorse.
• Deterrence and Protection of the Public: The need to promote respect for the law, incapacitate a recidivist trafficker, and deter other would-be fentanyl dealers.

The court expressly recognized that life sentences are “especially difficult,” and stated it had used them only a handful of times over two decades, but found this case “compelling.” It imposed concurrent non-life terms for other counts, plus a mandatory consecutive five-year term under § 924(c), resulting in an aggregate sentence of life plus sixty months.

Appellate Holding

Applying Vonner’s presumption of reasonableness for within-Guidelines sentences and relying on the confluence emphasized in Rita (Congress and the Commission treating death-resulting drug trafficking with extraordinary severity, and the district court’s assessment aligning with that view), the Sixth Circuit concluded that Hines did not carry his burden to rebut the presumption. The panel declined to reweigh § 3553(a) factors and held the sentence substantively reasonable.

Impact

• Fentanyl-Death Cases: This opinion signals strong appellate support for top-of-range sentences—including life—where fentanyl distribution results in death, especially with aggravators like firearms and extensive criminal history.
• Guidelines Deference: Where the base offense level is 38 under § 2D1.1(a)(2) and the range spans to life, district courts that make a robust record keyed to § 3553(a) can expect affirmance.
• Structured Sentencing Rationale: Explicit reliance on general deterrence, harm severity, criminal history, and respect for law remains pivotal in affirmances of severe sentences.

Precedents Cited: How They Shaped the Outcome

• Graham (2010): Clarified that, when a Rule 29 sufficiency issue is properly preserved, the standard on appeal is de novo. Here, that standard was unavailable because the new arguments were not preserved.
• Chance (2002), Dandy (1993), Osborne (2018): Cement the Sixth Circuit’s strict preservation rule: specific sufficiency grounds not raised in a Rule 29 motion are waived, and waived arguments are not reviewed. This trio controlled the threshold disposition of Hines’s sufficiency claims.
• Rayyan (2018), Overmeyer (2011), Vonner (2008) (en banc), Adkins (2013): Supply the framework for substantive reasonableness review, emphasizing deference, the presumption of reasonableness for within-Guidelines sentences, and the prohibition on appellate reweighing of § 3553(a) factors absent unreasonableness.
• Rita (2007): Supports affirmance where there is a “double determination” of reasonableness—alignment between the Sentencing Commission’s policy judgments and the district judge’s case-specific assessment.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Rule 29 Sufficiency Motion: A request to acquit because the evidence is legally insufficient. To preserve an issue for appeal in the Sixth Circuit, a defendant must specify each insufficiency ground (e.g., lack of proof of conspiracy, lack of proof of a firearm element) in the Rule 29 motion.
• Waiver vs. Forfeiture: Waiver is the intentional relinquishment of a known right; forfeiture is the failure to timely assert a right. The Sixth Circuit treats unraised Rule 29 grounds as waived, meaning they generally will not be reviewed on appeal.
• Within-Guidelines Presumption: If the sentence falls within the advisory Guidelines range, appellate courts presume it reasonable. The defendant must show that the district judge’s weighing of the statutory factors was unreasonable.
• Death-Resulting Drug Trafficking: Under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A), when death results from drug distribution, the statutory range expands up to life. The Guidelines set a base offense level of 38 for such cases, and policy statements recognize possible upward departures due to death.
• ACCA vs. § 924(c): ACCA (18 U.S.C. § 924(e)) imposes a 15-year minimum for certain felon-in-possession cases with qualifying priors. Section 924(c) imposes a mandatory consecutive term for possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime or crime of violence. In Hines’s case, the § 924(c) five-year term had to run consecutively to all other terms.
• General Deterrence: A § 3553(a)(2)(B) factor that looks beyond the defendant to discourage similar crimes by others—often emphasized in fentanyl trafficking due to the drug’s lethality.

What the Court Did Not Decide

• The merits of the new sufficiency claims: The panel did not evaluate whether the evidence was insufficient to prove a conspiracy or the ACCA counts; those issues were not preserved and thus not reviewed.
• The preserved but unargued issues: Although Hines’s Rule 29 motion below contested the conspiracy’s scale and the “death enhancement” linkage to him as the source, he did not raise those points on appeal; the panel therefore did not opine on them.

Practical Takeaways and Future Implications

• For Defense Counsel: Preserve, preserve, preserve. Frame Rule 29 motions with specificity for each count and element; renew post-verdict; and maintain consistency on appeal. Consider alternative and overlapping grounds to avoid waiver.
• For Prosecutors: Expect the Sixth Circuit to police preservation strictly. When facing novel sufficiency theories on appeal, point to Dandy/Chance/Osborne to preclude review if those theories were not raised below.
• For District Courts: Detailed, factor-by-factor § 3553(a) explanations—especially in fentanyl-death cases—bolster appellate resilience. Noting the seriousness of harm, criminal history, firearms, and deterrence, and situating the sentence within the Guidelines framework, supports affirmance.
• Sentencing in Fentanyl-Death Cases: The combination of Congressional authorization (life possible when death results), a high Guidelines base offense level, and the policy rationale for deterrence means top-of-range sentences will often be sustained when the record is thorough.
• Precedential Weight: Although not recommended for publication, the decision is citable for its persuasive value and reflects the Sixth Circuit’s ongoing approach to Rule 29 preservation and sentencing deference.

Conclusion

United States v. Hines adds a clear, practical reinforcement to two well-settled Sixth Circuit doctrines: (1) Rule 29 sufficiency challenges must be specifically preserved in the district court or they will not be reviewed on appeal, and (2) within-Guidelines sentences—especially life terms in fentanyl-death cases supported by a careful § 3553(a) analysis—will be afforded strong deference and are presumed reasonable. The opinion provides a cautionary roadmap for defense counsel on preservation and a validation for district courts that thoroughly explain why the extreme harms of lethal fentanyl trafficking warrant severe punishment.