Antoine Hill v. United States
827 F.3d 560
| 7th Cir. | 2016Background
- Antoine Hill was convicted in 2003 of federal drug offenses and sentenced as a Career Offender under the Sentencing Guidelines; his original 360-month sentence was later reduced to 226 months after Booker.
- Hill’s Career Offender status rested on two Illinois convictions: attempt (shooting into a car wounding occupants) and aggravated discharge of a firearm (shooting at a person).
- U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a)(1) defines a “crime of violence” as an offense having as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force; both Illinois offenses fit that definition.
- Hill sought permission from the Seventh Circuit under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A) to file a successive § 2255 motion based on Johnson v. United States (which invalidated the ACCA residual clause mirrored by U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a)(2)).
- The Seventh Circuit panel initially denied authorization; the court considered sua sponte whether to rehear its denial and whether granting leave would be appropriate given the underlying facts and the futility of further collateral proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Hill's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hill may obtain authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion based on Johnson | Johnson invalidates the residual clause; this authorizes a successive § 2255 challenge to his Career Offender enhancement | Hill’s predicate Illinois convictions are crimes of violence under the Guidelines’ force clause, so Johnson (residual-clause decision) doesn’t help | Denied — authorization to file successive § 2255 was refused |
| Whether Hill’s Illinois convictions qualify as crimes of violence under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a)(1) (the force clause) | Implicitly: Hill’s predicates might fall under the residual clause only | The attempted murder and aggravated discharge convictions have as elements use/attempted use of physical force and thus fall within the force clause | Held they are crimes of violence under the force clause |
| Whether the court should rehear/relitigate the authorization denial sua sponte | Hill sought reconsideration via his motion; Johnson argued to apply | Court may reconsider sua sponte but should deny where further relief would be futile given undisputed predicate convictions and a proper sentence | Court declined to disturb its denial; further collateral attack would be futile |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (holding the Sentencing Guidelines advisory rather than mandatory)
- United States v. Paladino, 401 F.3d 471 (7th Cir.) (discussing Booker’s effect in this circuit)
- Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (holding ACCA’s residual clause unconstitutional)
- Cooper v. Woodford, 358 F.3d 1117 (9th Cir.) (court of appeals may rehear matters sua sponte)
- In re Byrd, 269 F.3d 585 (6th Cir.) (same)
- Triestman v. United States, 124 F.3d 361 (2d Cir.) (same)
- United States v. Holcomb, 657 F.3d 445 (7th Cir.) (procedural matters on rehearing)
- United States v. Melendez, 60 F.3d 41 (2d Cir.) (procedural authority on rehearing)