United States v. Hill
638 F.3d 589
| 8th Cir. | 2011Background
- Hill was convicted on three counts of distribution of cocaine base under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1).
- The government introduced Hill's post-arrest confession—admitted cocaine distribution of 198 ounces—as Rule 404(b) evidence for knowledge/intent.
- PSR included 198 ounces as relevant conduct, increasing base offense level to 32 with Criminal History Category V.
- District court imposed 188 months (bottom of the guidelines) to run counts concurrently, with $300 special assessment and 3 years supervised release.
- Hill challenged 404(b) admission, the relevant conduct finding, and failure to grant a downward variance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rule 404(b) admission | Hill contends prior distribution evidence is prejudicial and insufficiently connected. | Government asserts relevance to knowledge/intent; timely and similar acts; limiting instruction mitigates prejudice. | No abuse of discretion; 404(b) properly admitted with limiting instructions. |
| Relevant conduct in base offense | Hill argues 198 ounces should not be included as relevant conduct. | Government shows approximation warranted; sufficient indicia of reliability; evidence supports quantity. | District court did not clearly err; 198 ounces included as relevant conduct. |
| Downward variance under § 3553(a) | Crack/powder ratio creates unwarranted disparity; requests variance. | Court considered 3553(a) factors and declined variance; not required to grant one. | Sentence within advisory range; no abuse of discretion in denying variance. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Washington, 596 F.3d 926 (8th Cir. 2010) (abuse-of-discretion review for Rule 404(b) evidence)
- United States v. Ali, 616 F.3d 745 (8th Cir. 2010) (testing 404(b) probative value factors)
- United States v. Turner, 583 F.3d 1062 (8th Cir. 2009) (limiting instructions mitigate prejudice)
- United States v. Johnson, 934 F.2d 936 (8th Cir. 1991) (prior acts admissible to show knowledge/intent)
- United States v. Thomas, 593 F.3d 752 (8th Cir. 2010) (knowledge/intent; admissibility of prior acts)
- United States v. Minnis, 489 F.3d 325 (8th Cir. 2007) (drug quantity proof by preponderance; approximate quantities allowed)
- United States v. Samuels, 611 F.3d 914 (8th Cir. 2010) (prior felony conviction of crack distribution admissible for knowledge/intent)
- United States v. Behler, 14 F.3d 1264 (8th Cir.) (probative value of prior acts; reliability standards)
- United States v. Johnson, 934 F.2d 936 (8th Cir. 1991) (as above)
- United States v. Frazier, 280 F.3d 835 (8th Cir. 2002) (context for quantity approximation)
- Vinton v. United States, 631 F.3d 476 (8th Cir. 2011) (sentencing within guidelines is presumptively reasonable)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (reasonableness review of sentences)
- Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. 85 (2007) (courts may vary based on crack/powder disparity concerns)
- Replogle v. United States, 628 F.3d 1026 (8th Cir. 2011) (abuse-of-discretion standard in sentencing)
- Feemster v. United States, 572 F.3d 455 (8th Cir. 2009) (procedural vs. substantive review of sentences)
- United States v. Moore, 624 F.3d 875 (8th Cir. 2010) (Kimbrough framework in considering variance)