United States v. Hill
468 F. App'x 133
3rd Cir.2012Background
- Hill and his brother were charged in a multi-count indictment for conspiracy to rob, interference with interstate commerce by robbery, and using a firearm during a crime of violence.
- Hill pled guilty to all counts on November 23, 2010 under a plea agreement preserving certain appellate rights.
- At sentencing, the PSR calculated an adjusted offense level 19 and a criminal history category of V, but the court did not finalize a Guidelines range in the record.
- The government moved for a one-level downward departure for substantial assistance; the court granted it but did not recalculate the Guidelines range.
- The district court sentenced Hill to 96 months on Counts One and Two (concurrent) and 84 months on Count Three (consecutive), total 180 months, plus supervised release and fines.
- Hill appealed, arguing procedural error in sentencing and excess above the Guidelines range.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court committed procedural error in sentencing Hill. | Hill (Hill) argue the court failed to calculate a Guidelines range and explain departures/variances. | The government contends the procedures were satisfied or harmless, given the record. | Yes, procedural error; sentence vacated and remanded. |
| Whether the failure to calculate initial Guidelines range and departures barred review of the sentence. | Hill contends lack of range calc prevents meaningful review. | Government asserts review under plain error stretches but is not decisive here. | Procedural error shown; remand required. |
| Whether the court properly applied or explained any departure/variance from the Guidelines. | Hill argues the upward departure/variance was not justified or explained. | Government relies on substantial assistance and other factors, but fails to justify definitively. | Court failed to explain departure/variance; vacate and remand. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Grier, 475 F.3d 556 (3d Cir. 2007) (en banc; review standards for guidelines interpretation)
- Tomko v. United States, 562 F.3d 558 (3d Cir. 2009) (three-step sentencing procedure; abuse of discretion standard)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (U.S. 2007) (reasonableness of sentence; explanatory requirements)
- United States v. Wright, 642 F.3d 148 (3d Cir. 2011) (district court must calculate guideline range before departures)
- United States v. Hickman, 991 F.2d 1110 (3d Cir. 1993) (ratcheting and sequential handling of 4A1.3 adjustments)
- United States v. Negroni, 638 F.3d 434 (3d Cir. 2011) (thorough justification required for significant variance)
- United States v. Vampire Nation, 451 F.3d 189 (3d Cir. 2006) (distinguishing departures from variance; explanation required)
- United States v. Brown, 578 F.3d 221 (3d Cir. 2009) (articulation of whether sentence is a departure or variance)
- United States v. Fumo, 655 F.3d 288 (3d Cir. 2011) (plain error standard in sentencing procedure review)