US v. George Hill

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 7:02-cr-00071-F-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998417246] [10-4102]

US v. George Hill

Doc. 0

Case: 10-4102 Document: 31

Date Filed: 09/02/2010

Page: 1

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-4102 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff ­ Appellee, v. GEORGE TYRONE HILL, Defendant ­ Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (7:02-cr-00071-F-1) Submitted: July 28, 2010 Decided: September 2, 2010

Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, G. Alan DuBois, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. George E. B. Holding, United States Attorney, Anne M. Hayes, Michael G. James, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Dockets.Justia.com

Case: 10-4102 Document: 31

Date Filed: 09/02/2010

Page: 2

PER CURIAM: George Tyrone Hill appeals the district court's order revoking his supervised release and sentencing him to twentyfour months in prison. Hill violations. (2009). We affirm. five Grade C supervised release

committed

See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 7B1.1, p.s. His criminal history category was V, and the

recommended range of imprisonment was 7-13 months. § 7B1.4(a), p.s. He contends that the

See USSG

twenty-four-month

sentence is unreasonable. A sentence imposed following revocation of supervised release statutory States v. will be affirmed and 461 upon is if not it is within the applicable United A

maximum Crudup, imposed

plainly

unreasonable. (4th Cir is

F.3d

433,

439-40 of

2006).

sentence

revocation

release

procedurally

reasonable if the district court considered the Chapter Seven policy statements and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors that it is is permitted to consider. reasonable Id. if at the 438-40. court Such stated a a

sentence

substantively

proper basis for concluding that the defendant should receive the sentence imposed, up to the statutory maximum. We find that Hill's sentence is Id. at 440. and

procedurally

substantively reasonable.

The district court stated that it had

considered the Chapter 7 policy statements, and announced that 2

Case: 10-4102 Document: 31

Date Filed: 09/02/2010

Page: 3

it

would

impose

a

sentence

above

the

recommended

sentencing

range. clearly

Although the court did not cite § 3553(a), the court took into consideration many of the permissible

§ 3553(a) factors when it sentenced Hill. court mentioned the Hill's need to recent and past the

For instance, the history of and violent Hill's

behavior,

protect

public,

unsatisfactory conduct while on supervised release. * Hill because the complains that did his not sentence address is his unreasonable argument at

district

court

sentencing that his work history and abstention from drug use warranted a sentence within the recommended range. Because he

raises the issue for the first time on appeal, our review is for plain error. Cir. 2010). See United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 578 (4th In light of Hill's five release violations,

including the commission of criminal conduct and absconding from release, there is no reasonable probability that he would have received a shorter sentence had the district court specifically addressed his argument. that
*

Accordingly, Hill has not demonstrated affected his substantial rights, and

the

alleged

error

Contrary to Hill's contention that the district court varied above the recommended sentencing range because of a recent arrest, the court's finding of recent violent behavior was based on Hill's no contest plea to the charge that he had violated supervised release by committing an offense. A no contest plea to a violation of supervised release is treated as a guilty plea to that violation. 3

Case: 10-4102 Document: 31

Date Filed: 09/02/2010

Page: 4

there was no plain error. F.3d 834, 849 (4th Cir

See United States v. Washington, 404 2005). We conclude that the court

adequately explained its reasons for imposing the twenty-fourmonth sentence. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal before contentions the court are and adequately argument presented not in aid the the materials decisional

would

process. AFFIRMED

4