United States v. Carlos Hibbit
514 F. App'x 594
6th Cir.2013Background
- Defendant Hibbit was charged in a 59-count conspiracy case and pled guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute; district court sentenced him to 144 months’ imprisonment plus three years of supervised release.
- PSR recommended career-offender status under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1 based on 2002 felonious assault and 2004 aggravated burglary convictions, placing Hibbit in Criminal History Category VI with a guideline range of 130–162 months.
- The district court adopted the career-offender designation and imposed a 144-month sentence.
- Standard of review for the appeal is abuse-of-discretion for overall reasonableness; plain error review applies if Hibbit failed to object, with a four-prong test for plain error.
- The key issue is whether Hibbit’s 2002 Ohio felonious assault conviction qualifies as a “crime of violence” under § 4B1.2(a) (and thus supports the career-offender enhancement) under the categorical and, if needed, modified categorical approaches.
- The court held that Hibbit was convicted under Ohio Rev. Code § 2903.11(A) and that subsection (A) qualifies as a violent felony; therefore the career-offender designation was proper and the sentence was affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Hibbit's 2002 felonious assault qualify as a crime of violence? | Hibbit contends it does not necessarily qualify. | Hibbit’s status should be enhanced if the offense is a crime of violence. | Yes; it qualifies as a crime of violence under § 4B1.2(a)(1) via the classifiable felony. |
| May the court use Shepard documents to determine the specific subsection charged? | The indictment should not be treated as establishing the precise subsection. | Indictment language tracks the statute and is sufficient to establish the subsection. | Indictment shows Hibbit was convicted under subsection A; Shepard documents support this. |
| Is plain error review appropriate given no objection to the career-offender designation? | Plain error should not be used to affirm a career-offender status without objection. | Plain error review applies when no objection is raised. | Plain error review applies; the error, if any, would be assessed under that standard. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Meeks, 664 F.3d 1067 (6th Cir. 2012) (defines framework for crime-of-violence determinations under § 4B1.2)
- Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (U.S. 1990) (established categorical and Shepard-style approaches for ACCA/related statutes)
- Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13 (U.S. 2005) (validates use of public documents to establish crime-of-violence category)
- United States v. Anderson, 695 F.3d 390 (6th Cir. 2012) (holds Ohio § 2903.11(A) qualifies as a violent felony under ACCA/4B1.2)
- United States v. Ford, 560 F.3d 420 (6th Cir. 2009) (treats violent-felony classification under ACCA and § 4B1.1 as overlapping)
- United States v. Rodriguez, 664 F.3d 1032 (6th Cir. 2011) (discusses Application Note 1 and categories of violence)
- Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (U.S. 2009) (plain-error standard for appellate review)
- United States v. Brown, 579 F.3d 672 (6th Cir. 2009) (reasonableness review standard for sentences)