United States v. Anthony Hill, 915 F.3d 669

Hill was indicted under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) and the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), which would trigger a 15-year mandatory minimum if he had three qualifying prior violent-felony or serious-drug convictions.
Defense negotiated a Rule 11(c)(1)(B) plea agreement in which the government agreed to strike the ACCA enhancement and the parties recommended a 57–71 month sentence; the PSR calculated a Guidelines range of 77–96 months.
At sentencing the court varied downward and imposed 67 months (within the negotiated 57–71 month range); the court did not base the sentence on ACCA and the ACCA enhancement was not before the court.
After Johnson v. United States invalidated ACCA’s residual clause (and Welch made that rule retroactive), Hill filed a § 2255 motion arguing his plea and sentence were tainted because he was never actually eligible for ACCA under Johnson.
The district court denied relief; Hill appealed, arguing the government’s prior ACCA charge (and the resulting plea negotiations) amounted to misinformation of constitutional magnitude that influenced his sentence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Hill’s sentence was imposed in violation of due process because it was founded (even indirectly) on misinformation that he was ACCA-eligible	Hill: Johnson rendered his prior convictions non-ACCA predicates, so the threat of a 15-year ACCA enhancement improperly influenced his plea/sentencing and violated due process	Gov: ACCA enhancement was withdrawn before sentencing, the plea expressly allowed a non-ACCA sentence, and the district court did not base its sentence on ACCA eligibility	The court held Hill failed to show the alleged misinformation was "demonstrably made the basis for the sentence," so no due-process violation and no § 2255 relief

Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) (invalidating ACCA’s residual clause as unconstitutionally vague)
Welch v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1257 (2016) (Johnson applies retroactively on collateral review)
Beckles v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 886 (2017) (Sentencing Guidelines are not subject to vagueness challenges under Due Process)
United States v. Vanderwerfhorst, 576 F.3d 929 (9th Cir. 2009) (movant must show challenged information is false/unreliable and demonstrably the basis for the sentence)
United States v. Ibarra, 737 F.2d 825 (9th Cir. 1984) (same two-part Tucker/Ibarra standard referenced)
Tucker v. United States, 404 U.S. 443 (1972) (sentence must not be founded in part upon misinformation of constitutional magnitude)
Townsend v. Burke, 334 U.S. 736 (1948) (due process violated when sentence rests on materially untrue assumptions about criminal record)
United States v. Addonizio, 442 U.S. 178 (1979) (objectively ascertainable error requirement)
Farrow v. United States, 580 F.2d 1339 (9th Cir. 1978) (court must make it abundantly clear the challenged information was the basis for sentence)