United States v. Hoyle
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 8884
| 10th Cir. | 2014Background
- Hoyle convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) for being a felon in possession after a silver revolver with his blood and DNA was found near where he fled following a threat incident.
- In Hoyle I the Tenth Circuit affirmed the conviction but vacated the sentence because two Kansas felony convictions were not eligible as ACCA predicates due to restoration of civil rights; remanded for resentencing.
- On remand Hoyle moved for a new trial alleging Brady violations (undisclosed disciplinary letters for officers and an alleged victim’s misdemeanor theft conviction); the district court denied the motion.
- At resentencing the PSR counted Hoyle’s two 1994 Kansas felonies for both base offense level under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a)(2) and criminal history points under § 4A1.1(a), and added +4 levels under § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) for using/possessing a firearm in connection with the Kansas felony of criminal threat.
- Hoyle objected that restored-rights convictions cannot be used by the Guidelines (arguing conflict with 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(20)), challenged the +4 enhancement, and renewed his Brady claims; the district court overruled objections and imposed the statutory maximum 120 months.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Hoyle) | Defendant's Argument (Government) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court erred in denying a new trial based on Brady | Government suppressed impeachment material (disciplinary letters; victim’s theft conviction) that could have affected credibility | No suppression: letters not impeachment or not known/controlled by government; district court findings not clearly erroneous | Denial affirmed; no Brady violation shown |
| Whether restored-rights state felonies may be counted under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a)(2) for base offense level | § 921(a)(20) excludes pardoned/restored convictions for “crime punishable by imprisonment >1 year,” so Guidelines must not count them | § 921(a)(20) defines terms for Chapter 44 liability, not a specific limitation on the Sentencing Commission’s discretion; Guidelines may consider prior convictions for sentencing | Court affirmed use of the convictions for base offense level; § 921(a)(20) does not control the Guidelines |
| Whether restored-rights state felonies may be used to assess criminal history points under § 4A1.1 | Same statutory argument: restored rights exclusions bar counting in criminal history | Guidelines and Commission discretion govern criminal history calculation; no statutory bar shown | Court affirmed counting convictions for criminal history points |
| Whether evidence sufficed to apply +4 enhancement under § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) for use/possession in connection with Kansas criminal threat | Evidence insufficient because victim’s credibility undermined and 911 call didn’t state gun pointed at victim; other witnesses didn’t confirm pointing | Victim testified Hoyle pointed gun and threatened to shoot; credibility for sentencing is for district court to assess | Court affirmed district court’s factual finding by preponderance and +4 enhancement |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Hoyle, 697 F.3d 1158 (10th Cir. 2012) (prior appellate decision affirming conviction but vacating sentence due to restored civil rights issue)
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (prosecution’s suppression of materially favorable evidence violates due process)
- United States v. LaBonte, 520 U.S. 751 (1997) (Sentencing Commission discretion must yield to specific congressional directives)
- United States v. Plakio, 433 F.3d 692 (10th Cir. 2005) (statutory definition for substantive offense separate from Guidelines’ sentencing definitions)
- United States v. Palmer, 183 F.3d 1014 (9th Cir. 1999) (contrary holding that § 921(a)(20) precludes counting restored-rights convictions under § 2K2.1)
- United States v. Erickson, 561 F.3d 1150 (10th Cir. 2009) (Brady materiality and government possession/control requirements)