982 F.3d 441
6th Cir.2020Background:
- In November 2018 Hill transported and later delivered methamphetamine; police arrested him with roughly five ounces of crystal meth on his person.
- Hill told officers he was holding the drugs for his cousin, Robert Henderson, for $50; he denied involvement in an earlier controlled buy.
- Indicted on two counts (aiding/abetting distribution and possession with intent to distribute 50+ g meth); pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute.
- In his plea Hill acknowledged prior Michigan felony drug convictions and that he had at least one "serious drug felony" conviction.
- The presentence report applied the career-offender enhancement and declined a mitigating-role reduction; district court initially calculated a Guidelines range of 262–327 months.
- Government moved under USSG § 5K1.1 for substantial assistance; court granted a 6-level departure, producing a Guidelines range of 140–175 months and imposing a 144-month sentence. Hill appealed.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Hill) | Defendant's Argument (Gov't) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hill's prior Michigan convictions qualify as "controlled substance offenses" for career-offender status under USSG § 4B1.1 | Michigan's definition of "deliver" includes "attempted transfer," which Hill says makes those convictions attempt crimes not qualifying under Havis | Michigan's delivery statute parallels federal law (actual, constructive, or attempted transfer), so the convictions are completed "delivery/distribution" offenses that qualify | Affirmed: prior Michigan convictions qualify; career-offender classification proper (court follows Thomas/Garth distinguishing Havis) |
| Whether Hill was entitled to a mitigating-role reduction under USSG § 3B1.2 | Hill was a minor participant: nonessential role, small financial benefit ($50) | Hill stored/delivered drugs, involved others, understood the transaction; and as a career offender the only available reduction (when §4B1.1(b) controls) is acceptance of responsibility | Held: Moot/inapplicable—once career-offender level under §4B1.1(b) controls, mitigating-role reductions do not apply; sentence affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Havis, 927 F.3d 382 (6th Cir. 2019) (en banc) (addressing when attempt crimes fall outside controlled-substance definition)
- United States v. Thomas, 969 F.3d 583 (6th Cir. 2020) (per curiam) (Michigan delivery statute aligns with federal definition; distinguishes Havis)
- United States v. Garth, 965 F.3d 493 (6th Cir. 2020) (explaining "attempted transfer" differs from attempt crimes)
- United States v. Johnson, 155 F.3d 682 (3d Cir. 1998) (analyzing Guidelines structure and limits on reductions once career-offender status applies)
- United States v. Smith, [citation="60 F. App'x 588"] (6th Cir. 2003) (noting career offenders generally cannot receive role-based downward adjustments)
- United States v. Jackson, 55 F.3d 1219 (6th Cir. 1995) (standard of review and burden for demonstrating mitigating-role adjustment)