USA v. Smith

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Charlotte N. Sweeney
Criminal Case No. 1:25-cr-00159-CNS-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
AUSTIN ELLIOTT SMITH,
Defendant.
AMENDED ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Defendant Austin Elliott Smith’s Motion to Limit
Scope of Sentencing Hearing. ECF No. 23. Defendant moves to exclude testimony from
Bridget and Andy Young, parents of decedent Alex Young. Defendant was convicted of
21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (B)(1)(C), Possession with Intent to Distribute a Mixture and
Substance Containing Methamphetamine. Defendant contends that because he was not
convicted of causing the death of Alex Young, Mr. Young should not be considered a
victim and his parents should not be able to address the Court at sentencing. ECF No.
23 at 4. The Court DENIES his motion for the foregoing reasons.
Defendant argues that Alex Young does not qualify as a victim under the Crime
Victims’ Rights Act (CVRA), ECF No. 23 at 6, as Mr. Young was not “a person directly
and proximately harmed as a result of the commission of a Federal offense.” 18 U.S.C.
§ 3771(e)(2)(A). However, the Crime Victims’ Rights Act explicitly bars Defendant from
raising a challenge under the CVRA. “A person accused of the crime may not obtain
Case No. 1:25-cr-00159-CNS Document 38 filed 12/02/25 USDC Colorado pg 1
of 3

2
any form of relief under this chapter.” 18 U.S.C. § 3771(d)(1) (limiting those that can
asserts rights under the CVRA to only the crime victim, a crime victim’s representative,
and the attorney for the Government). Therefore, Defendant’s contention that Mr.
Young, or his parents, do not qualify as victims under the CVRA will not be entertained.
The Court is afforded broad discretion as to what information it chooses to
consider at sentencing. 18 U.S.C. § 3661 (“No limitation shall be placed on the
information concerning the background, character, and conduct of a person convicted of
an offense which a court of the United States may receive and consider for the purpose
of imposing an appropriate sentence.”). As long as the information being offered has
some bearing on the statutory factors as set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), the Court can
consider it. United States v. Cozad, 21 F.4th 1259, 1263 (10th Cir. 2022). See also
United States v. Tucker, 404 U.S. 443, 446 (1972) (“It is surely true, as the Government
asserts, that a trial judge in the federal judicial system generally has wide discretion in
determining what sentence to impose. It is also true that before making that
determination, a judge may appropriately conduct an inquiry broad in scope, largely
unlimited either as to the kind of information he may consider, or the source from which
it may come.”). Furthermore, the Court can consider any facts that go to “the nature and
circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant.” 18
U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1).
While Defendant is correct that the Court “does not enjoy boundless discretion
with respect to the facts it relies on at sentencing,” Cozad, 21 F.4th at 1263,1 the Court is
1 The CVRA cannot serve as a basis to limit the Court’s discretion. See Cozad, 21 F.4th at 1263. See also
United States v. Matthew, 449 Fed. Appx. 542, 544 (8th Cir. 2011) (denying defendant from blocking
testimony at sentencing hearing under the CVRA).
Case No. 1:25-cr-00159-CNS Document 38 filed 12/02/25 USDC Colorado pg 2
of 3

3
well within its discretion to hear from Mr. Young’s parents. Ultimately, the question is
whether the testimony of Alex Young’s parents will assist the Court in imposing an
appropriate sentence. The Court finds that their testimony will. They can testify to how
Alex Young and Defendant were best friends and college roommates, how Mr. Young
was found deceased with several drugs located near his body, including the pills
apparently purchased from Defendant, and Defendant’s conduct following the death of
their son, including continuing to sell controlled sentences. See ECF Nos. 22 at 5; 26 at
2, 5. Their testimony provides relevant information as to the history and characteristics
of Defendant as well as the nature and circumstances of this offense. This greater
understanding is not only not unfairly prejudicial but goes to the heart of the Court’s
duties to gather necessary information to impose an appropriate sentence.
Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion to Limit Scope of Sentencing Hearing, ECF No.
23, is DENIED.
DATED this 2nd day of December 2025.
BY THE COURT:
________________________________
Charlotte N. Sweeney
United States District Judge
Case No. 1:25-cr-00159-CNS Document 38 filed 12/02/25 USDC Colorado pg 3
of 3