United States v. Samuel Hill
682 F. App'x 210
| 4th Cir. | 2017Background
- Samuel Wayne Hill pled guilty to conspiracy to manufacture, distribute, and possess with intent to distribute ≥500 grams of methamphetamine under 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 846.
- The district court sentenced Hill to 480 months’ imprisonment (within Guidelines range of 360 months to life) and imposed a lifetime term of supervised release (an upward variance from the Guidelines 5-year range).
- Hill’s plea agreement included a waiver of appellate rights as to within-Guidelines custodial sentences; the Government moved to dismiss parts of the appeal on that basis.
- On appeal Hill argued (1) procedural sentencing error for inadequate explanation of the custodial sentence and rejection of a downward variance, (2) inadequate explanation for the upward-variant lifetime supervised-release term, and (3) judicial bias/violation of due process based on the judge’s remarks about methamphetamine harms.
- The court held the waiver barred review of challenges to the within-Guidelines custodial sentence and found Hill waived the supervised-release argument for failing to adequately brief it; it addressed and rejected the due process/bias claim on the merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the appeal waives challenge to within-Guidelines custodial sentence and related procedural explanation | Hill argued the district court failed to adequately explain the 480‑month sentence and refused his downward-variance arguments | Government argued Hill knowingly waived appellate review of a within‑Guidelines custodial sentence in his plea agreement | Waiver enforced; those claims fall within the scope of the appellate waiver and are dismissed |
| Whether Hill preserved and adequately raised the challenge to the lifetime supervised‑release term | Hill asserted the court failed to explain reasons for imposing lifetime supervised release and failed to justify upward variance | Government argued Hill’s opening brief did not meaningfully brief this issue, and thus he waived appellate review; alternatively, any review would be plain‑error only | Waived for inadequate briefing; even if reviewed, no plain error shown |
| Whether the district court’s sentencing remarks showed judicial bias violating due process | Hill claimed judge’s strongly worded comments about methamphetamine cooks evince bias and due process violation | Government contended the remarks reflected legitimate sentencing consideration and community-vindication, not disqualifying bias | Remarks were within permissible bounds (expressions of indignation) and did not violate due process; claim denied |
| Whether plain‑error review would overturn supervised‑release explanation | Hill raised no specific supervised‑release term or objection at sentencing | Government noted absence of specific request/objection limits review to plain error standards | Even under plain‑error standard, record shows court considered relevant factors; no reversible error |
Key Cases Cited
- Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540 (statements of impatience or anger by a judge do not alone establish bias)
- United States v. Bakker, 925 F.2d 728 (4th Cir. 1991) (sentencing court may consider community impact and may admonish/lecture defendant)
- United States v. Bartko, 728 F.3d 327 (4th Cir. 2013) (issues not raised in opening brief are waived)
- Eriline Co. S.A. v. Johnson, 440 F.3d 648 (4th Cir. 2006) (single conclusory sentence in an opening brief is insufficient to preserve an issue)
- United States v. Webb, 738 F.3d 638 (4th Cir. 2013) (preservation requirements limit review of sentencing challenges to plain error when no objection made)
- United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (plain‑error review requires error that is clear or obvious and affects substantial rights)