United States v. Randall Hill
684 F. App'x 325
4th Cir.2017Background
- Randall Stewart Hill was convicted by a jury for conspiracy to manufacture, distribute, dispense, and possess methamphetamine; the jury found 500 grams or more attributable and Hill was sentenced to 420 months.
- Hill did not object at trial to the jury instructions on drug-quantity attribution, nor to several statements made by the prosecutor in closing.
- Trial evidence included testimony tying Hill to dealings involving the threshold quantity and an encounter where a handgun was visible in Hill’s truck.
- Hill appealed arguing: (1) the district court failed to properly instruct the jury that drug-quantity attributable to him was an element that must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt and failed to instruct on the proper Collins/Pinkerton attribution analysis; (2) prosecutorial misconduct in closing statements required retrial or resentencing; and (3) the court erred in applying a sentencing enhancement for possession of a firearm in connection with the offense.
- Because Hill did not object at trial, the court reviewed the instruction and closing-argument claims for plain error; the Guidelines enhancement was reviewed for clear error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Hill) | Defendant's Argument (Government) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jury instruction on drug-quantity attribution and burden of proof | Court failed to instruct that quantity attributable to Hill is an element and must be found beyond a reasonable doubt; failed to instruct on Collins/Pinkerton method of attributing quantity to an individual conspirator | Instructions, read as a whole, required a drug-quantity finding after a guilty verdict and repeatedly stated the beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard; evidence tied quantity to Hill personally | No plain error: instructions, viewed in context, adequately stated law; overwhelming evidence established 500+ grams attributable to Hill |
| Prosecutorial misconduct in closing argument | Prosecutor made improper remarks (demonizing inference, comment a witness was dead, statement about sex for drugs) that infected trial fairness | Any remarks did not so prejudice the jury as to deny due process; consider Chong Lam factors and strength of evidence | No plain error: even assuming impropriety, remarks did not render trial fundamentally unfair |
| Sentencing enhancement for possession of a firearm (USSG §2D1.1(b)(1)) | Enhancement improperly applied because firearm not shown to be connected to drug offense | Firearm was visible in Hill’s truck during a transaction; constructive-possession and circumstantial evidence suffice to show connection | No clear error: district court permissibly applied enhancement; any error did not change the advisory Guidelines range |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Collins, 415 F.3d 304 (4th Cir.) (jury must find drug-quantity attributable to a conspirator beyond a reasonable doubt and Pinkerton attribution required)
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) (facts increasing penalty beyond statutory maximum must be found by jury)
- Pinkerton v. United States, 328 U.S. 640 (1946) (co-conspirator liability limited to reasonably foreseeable scope of the conspiracy)
- United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (1993) (plain-error review framework)
- United States v. Manigan, 592 F.3d 621 (4th Cir.) (government may prove firearm enhancement by circumstantial evidence and constructive possession; weapon need not be precisely concurrent with offense)