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UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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]

Download PDF
US v. George Hill Doc. 0 Case: 10-4102 Document: 31 Date Filed: 09/02/2010 Page: 1 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-4102 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. GEORGE TYRONE HILL, Defendant Appellant.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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?