United States v. Hill
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 13639
| 7th Cir. | 2011Background
- Hill served as deputy liquor commissioner and the mayor's assistant in East St. Louis and was appointed to oversee liquor licensing despite no prior city-administration experience.
- Hill had de facto authority to accept/Review license applications, conduct background checks, perform on-site inspections, issue citations, and influence license renewals.
- The district court imposed a four-level U.S.S.G. § 2C1.1(b)(3) enhancement for a public official in a high-level decision-making or sensitive position, based on Hill's substantial influence over licensing decisions.
- Hill pled guilty to soliciting/receiving bribes and making false statements; evidence showed extortion of licensees, including threats to close businesses and to demand sexual favors for licenses.
- Hill wore a badge, publicized his authority, and could deny, suspend, or revoke licenses; licensees feared retaliation and had limited practical recourse while licensing decisions were reviewed.
- The district court upwardly adjusted the sentence to 60 months, finding aggravating factors and a pervasive pattern of corruption in East St. Louis.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hill qualified for the § 2C1.1(b)(3) enhancement | Hill asserts he was neither high-level decision-maker nor in a sensitive position. | Hill contends his role isn’t sufficiently similar to enumerated examples to warrant the enhancement. | Yes; Hill held a sensitive position with substantial influence over licensing decisions. |
| Whether Hill’s position was sufficiently similar to enumerated examples | Enumerated examples limit applicability to similar offices. | His position is not among enumerated examples and is not sufficiently similar. | The scope is broad; Hill’s position is similar to a law enforcement officer and falls within the zone of similar officials. |
| Whether the district court properly applied the enhancement under the commentary | Relies on Hill’s influence over licensing decisions. | Commentary should be narrowly construed to restrict to explicit categories. | The enhancement applies; commentary supports broad application to officials with substantial influence. |
| Whether any Guidelines error was harmless | Error in guideline calculation could undermine the sentence. | Even with error, a proper § 3553(a) justification supports the sentence. | Harmless; the judge stated the same sentence would be imposed regardless of the guideline calculation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (Guidelines advisory but start from a proper range and consider § 3553(a))
- United States v. Abbas, 560 F.3d 660 (7th Cir. 2009) (Harmless-error approach in procedural sentencing errors)
- United States v. Reneslacis, 349 F.3d 412 (7th Cir. 2003) (Sensitive-position enhancement analysis in absence of supervisory status)
- United States v. Jackson, 547 F.3d 786 (7th Cir. 2008) (Judicial review of sentence within/above Guidelines after proper calculation)
- Begay v. United States, 553 U.S. 137 (2008) (Interpreting enumerated examples to determine residual-clause scope)
- Sykes v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 2267 (2011) (Clarified ACCA residual clause and the use of enumerated examples to gauge scope)
- United States v. Taylor, 637 F.3d 812 (7th Cir. 2011) (Guideline interpretation using text and application notes; de novo review of factual findings)
- United States v. Landwer, 640 F.3d 769 (7th Cir. 2011) (Broader reading of 'sophisticated means' consistent with purpose of guidelines)