United States v. Alison Hill
664 F. App'x 298
| 4th Cir. | 2016Background
- Alison Paige Hill pled guilty to conspiracy to manufacture, distribute, dispense, and produce with intent to distribute ≥50 grams of methamphetamine under a written plea agreement.
- The district court sentenced Hill to 108 months’ imprisonment (within the advisory Guidelines range).
- The court imposed an upward-variance 10-year term of supervised release (Guidelines range for supervised release was about 4–5 years).
- Hill appealed challenging (1) a §2D1.1(b)(1) firearm enhancement, (2) denial of a §3B1.2 mitigating-role reduction, (3) reasonableness of her within-Guidelines imprisonment sentence, and (4) reasonableness of the 10-year supervised-release variance.
- The Government sought enforcement of Hill’s appellate waiver in her plea agreement as to all claims except the supervised-release challenge.
- The Fourth Circuit concluded the appeal waiver was valid and enforceable for issues within its scope, dismissed the waived claims, and affirmed the supervised-release variance as procedurally and substantively reasonable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity/enforceability of appellate waiver | Waiver was not invalid; but she sought review of sentencing issues | Government: waiver was valid and bars most appellate challenges | Waiver was knowing, intelligent, valid; bars challenges within its scope |
| Firearm enhancement under USSG §2D1.1(b)(1) | District court erred in applying the enhancement | Waiver bars appellate review of within-Guidelines challenges | Claim dismissed under appeal waiver |
| Denial of mitigating-role reduction under USSG §3B1.2 | Hill was entitled to a role reduction | Waiver bars appellate review of within-Guidelines challenges | Claim dismissed under appeal waiver |
| Reasonableness of 10-year upward-variance supervised release | 10-year term unreasonable; court failed to explain why Guidelines 4–5 years were inadequate | Government: waiver does not cover upward variance to supervised release; district court explained reasons (danger of meth production, probation violations, need to protect public) | Reviewed for plain error; court found variance procedurally and substantively reasonable and affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Copeland, 707 F.3d 522 (4th Cir. 2013) (standards for enforcing appeal waivers)
- United States v. Blick, 408 F.3d 162 (4th Cir. 2005) (analyzing knowing and intelligent nature of plea/waiver)
- United States v. Webb, 738 F.3d 638 (4th Cir. 2013) (plain-error review when defendant failed to object below)
- United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (U.S. 1993) (elements and standard for plain-error review)
- United States v. Evans, 159 F.3d 908 (4th Cir. 1998) (supervised release is part of the sentence)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (U.S. 2007) (reasonableness review of sentencing)
- United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325 (4th Cir. 2009) (abuse-of-discretion standard for substantive reasonableness)