United States v. Hilts
696 F. App'x 1
| 2d Cir. | 2017Background
- Defendant George R. Hilts, Jr. pleaded guilty to two counts of distributing heroin; total heroin sold = 0.346 grams for $110 across two small sales in April 2014.
- Hilts had an extensive criminal history including two prior felony drug-trafficking convictions, qualifying him as a career offender under the Sentencing Guidelines, producing a Guidelines range of 151–188 months.
- The district court varied 91 months below the career-offender Guidelines and sentenced Hilts to 60 months’ imprisonment, citing the small quantity sold and sentencing disparities under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
- Hilts requested a one-level downward (horizontal) departure under U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3(b), arguing that Criminal History Category VI overrepresented his prior conduct; the district court denied that request but still imposed the non-Guidelines 60-month sentence.
- Hilts appealed, challenging procedural reasonableness (district court’s alleged misunderstanding of departure authority) and substantive reasonableness (that the 60-month sentence was still too harsh).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (United States) | Defendant's Argument (Hilts) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether denial of a § 4A1.3(b) horizontal departure was procedurally erroneous | No error; district court properly exercised discretion and need not depart | District court misunderstood its authority by denying the § 4A1.3(b) request while varying below Guidelines | No procedural error; no clear evidence district court misapprehended departure authority; review for plain error fails |
| Whether the 60-month sentence was substantively unreasonable | Sentence is reasonable given § 3553(a) consideration and judge’s discretion | 91-month variance was insufficient; court should have varied further based on small quantity and disparities | Substantively reasonable; within the range of permissible decisions; not an exceptional case |
| Whether the record shows inadequate consideration of § 3553(a) factors | Court expressly stated it considered § 3553(a) factors (small quantity, disparities, history, pretrial behavior) | Record insufficiently addresses § 3553(a) factors on the record | No; presumption that judge considered arguments applies; specific references to factors were made |
Key Cases Cited
- Cavera v. United States, 550 F.3d 180 (2d Cir. 2008) (standard for review of sentence reasonableness)
- Villafuerte v. United States, 502 F.3d 204 (2d Cir. 2007) (plain-error review for unpreserved sentencing objections)
- Aldeen v. United States, 792 F.3d 247 (2d Cir. 2015) (plain-error principles applied to sentencing)
- Young v. United States, 811 F.3d 592 (2d Cir. 2016) (refusal to depart is largely unreviewable; silence does not imply misunderstanding)
- Robinson v. United States, 799 F.3d 196 (2d Cir. 2015) (decisions not to depart are generally unreviewable)
- Ingram v. United States, 721 F.3d 35 (2d Cir. 2013) (discussion of § 4A1.3 horizontal departures)
- Fernandez v. United States, 443 F.3d 19 (2d Cir. 2006) (presumption that sentencing judge considered all properly presented arguments)
- Messina v. United States, 806 F.3d 55 (2d Cir. 2015) (within-Guidelines or significantly below-Guidelines sentences presumptively reasonable)
- Groysman v. United States, 766 F.3d 147 (2d Cir. 2014) (elements of plain-error review)