United States v. Clayton Hill
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 13299
| 7th Cir. | 2012Background
- Hill and wife Tamara Davidson devised a scheme to file 121 false tax returns for 2005, using others' identities and a fake tax service, Harding Tax Service in Chicago.
- The scheme caused approximate tax losses of $525,460 and resulted in about $353,500 in refunds paid by the Government.
- Hill was convicted on Count 1 (conspiracy to defraud the United States) and Count 22 (fraud in connection with identity theft); he pled guilty to Count 1 and Count 22 and was sentenced to 92 months.
- For Count 1, the base offense level was 20 due to tax loss; applying a sophisticated means enhancement raised it to 22.
- For Count 22, the base offense level was 6; loss, victims, and sophisticated means enhancements raised it to 26, then combined with Count 1 to 23 after a timely acceptance adjustment, yielding an overall guideline range of 92–115 months.
- The district court grouped Counts 1 and 22 to a single group, calculated the group’s base offense level as 26 (the more serious count), then reduced to 23 after the acceptance of responsibility; Hill challenges the 14-level increase and other aspects, but the court affirmed the sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 14-level increase for Count 22 was appropriate | Hill argues the Government wasn’t a victim for Count 22. | Hill contends loss should be addressed only in Count 1 to avoid double counting. | Yes; the Government was a victim and no improper double counting occurred. |
| Whether loss for Count 22 double-counted with Count 1 | Hill argues the tax loss from Count 1 should subsume Count 22. | Hill asserts independent loss under Count 22 due to ID fraud. | No; guidelines allow separate consideration of distinct counts; no double counting. |
| Whether within-Guidelines sentence creates unwarranted disparity with co-defendant | Hill claims disparity with Davidson’s 6 months 13 days is unwarranted. | Hill cites different criminal histories and conduct under leadership of Hill. | Disparity reasonable given different criminal histories and conduct; within-discretionary review upheld. |
Key Cases Cited
- Vizcarra, 668 F.3d 516 (7th Cir. 2012) (distinct aspects of conduct may support multiple enhancements; not barred by double counting)
- Eubanks, 593 F.3d 645 (7th Cir. 2010) (clear-error standard for facts; de novo for guidelines interpretation)
- Favara, 615 F.3d 824 (7th Cir. 2010) (within-Guidelines sentences are presumptively reasonable)
- Poetz, 582 F.3d 835 (7th Cir. 2009) (reasonableness of sentence; within-Guidelines presumptions)
- Jackson, 547 F.3d 786 (7th Cir. 2008) (presumptive reasonableness of properly calculated Guideline sentence)
- Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (2007) (statutory factors for imposing a sentence; avoids unwarranted disparities)