United States v. James Hill
19-4745
| 4th Cir. | Feb 25, 2022Background
- James Michael Hill pled guilty to distribution of marijuana (21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1)) and being a felon in possession of a firearm (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)).
- District court imposed a below-Guidelines sentence: 97 months’ imprisonment and 3 years’ supervised release.
- Appellate counsel filed an Anders brief (no non-frivolous issues) and a supplemental brief arguing Hill’s § 922(g) conviction is invalid under Rehaif; Hill did not file a pro se brief.
- Rehaif requires the government to prove the defendant knew his prohibited status when possessing a firearm; Greer requires a showing of a reasonable probability the defendant would not have pled guilty absent correct mens rea advice.
- Hill had a prior drug conviction, affirmed at plea that he knew of that conviction and that it barred firearm possession, so the court found no Rehaif-based prejudice.
- The oral pronouncement of special supervised-release conditions did not match the written judgment; under Singletary and Rogers, non-mandatory supervised-release conditions must be included in the oral sentence, so the sentence was vacated and the case remanded for resentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of § 922(g) conviction after Rehaif | Hill: plea was not informed of knowledge-of-status element; conviction should be vacated | Gov: Hill affirmatively knew of his felony status; no reasonable probability he would not have pled guilty | Conviction stands; no Rehaif prejudice shown (affirmed) |
| Validity of supervised-release conditions | Hill: (via counsel) oral and written conditions conflict; he wasn’t sentenced to those written conditions | Gov: (implicitly) judgment controls | Court: Oral pronouncement controls; mismatch requires vacatur and remand for resentencing (vacated in part, remanded) |
| Appealability under Anders | Counsel: no meritorious issues except sentence reasonableness; supplemental arguing Rehaif | Gov: appellee defended convictions and sentence | Court followed Anders review, found no other meritorious issues, affirmed convictions |
| Scope of appellate review after vacatur | Counsel sought review of sentencing claims | Gov: n/a | Court: Because sentence vacated, declined to address other sentencing claims now; remand required |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (procedure when counsel seeks to withdraw on appeal for lack of meritorious claims)
- Rehaif v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2191 (2019) (government must prove defendant knew his prohibited status under § 922(g))
- Greer v. United States, 141 S. Ct. 2090 (2021) (defendant must show reasonable probability he would not have pled guilty absent correct mens rea instruction)
- United States v. Singletary, 984 F.3d 341 (4th Cir. 2021) (oral pronouncement required for non-mandatory supervised-release conditions)
- United States v. Rogers, 961 F.3d 291 (4th Cir. 2020) (same rule regarding oral pronouncement of supervised-release conditions)