US v. Khaleel Ali Hilliard

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:06-cr-00156-NCT-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998692893].. [10-4185]

Appeal: 10-4185

Document: 36

Date Filed: 10/04/2011

Page: 1 of 5

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-4185

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
KHALEEL ALI HILLIARD,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro.
N. Carlton Tilley,
Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:06-cr-00156-NCT-1)

Submitted:

September 29, 2011

Decided:

October 4, 2011

Before KING, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded by unpublished
per curiam opinion.

George E. Crump, III, Rockingham, North Carolina, for Appellant.
John Stuart Bruce, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, William
Miller Gilmore, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States
Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 10-4185

Document: 36

Date Filed: 10/04/2011

Page: 2 of 5

PER CURIAM:
Khaleel Ali Hilliard was convicted following his guilty
plea to bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) (2006).
The

district

imprisonment.

court

sentenced

Counsel

has

Hilliard

filed

a

to

brief

188

in

months

accordance

of
with

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there are
no meritorious issues for appeal, but raising the issue of whether
the district court improperly sentenced him as a career offender
when

one

of

the

predicate

convictions

was

not

punishable

by

imprisonment for a term exceeding one year under North Carolina
law.

In light of United States v. Simmons, 649 F.3d 237, 2011 WL

3607266 (4th Cir. Aug. 17, 2011) (en banc), we vacate the sentence
and remand, but affirm Hilliard’s conviction.
This court reviews a sentence for reasonableness under an
abuse of discretion standard.
51 (2007).

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38,

This review requires appellate consideration of both

the procedural and substantive reasonableness of a sentence.

Id.

Procedural reasonableness is determined by reviewing whether the
district

court

properly

calculated

the

defendant’s

advisory

Guidelines range and then considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006)
factors,

analyzed

sufficiently

any

explained

arguments
the

presented

selected

by

the

sentence.

parties,

Id.

at

and

49-51.

“Regardless of whether the district court imposes an above, below,
or

within-Guidelines

sentence,

it

must

place

on

the

record

an

‘individualized assessment’ based on the particular facts of the

2

Appeal: 10-4185

Document: 36

case before it.”
Cir.

2009).

reasonableness
circumstances

Date Filed: 10/04/2011

Page: 3 of 5

United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 330 (4th
Finally,

of

this

court

the
see

to

sentence,
whether

reviews

“examining

the

the

the

sentencing

substantive

totality
court

of

the

abused

its

discretion in concluding that the sentence it chose satisfied the
standards

set

forth

in

§

3553(a).”

United

States

v.

Mendoza-Mendoza, 597 F.3d 212, 216 (4th Cir. 2010), cert. denied,
131 S. Ct. 3078 (2011).
Hilliard challenges the district court’s designation of
him as a career offender on the ground that the court erred in
finding that a prior North Carolina conviction for possession with
intent to sell and deliver cocaine counted as a conviction with a
sentence

greater

than

one

year

for

career

offender

purposes.*

Hilliard received a six to eight month sentence for the offense.
Section

4B1.1

of

the

Sentencing

Guidelines

defines

a

career

offender as a defendant who (1) was at least eighteen years old
when he committed the instant offense, (2) is convicted of a felony
“that

is

either

a

crime

of

violence

or

a

controlled

substance

offense,” and (3) “has at least two prior felony convictions of
either a crime of violence or a controlled substance offense.”
USSG § 4B1.1(a).

This court reviews de novo the district court’s

classification of Hilliard as a career offender and reviews for
*

Hilliard concedes that he has one qualifying felony of
felony assault on a police officer, but argues that none of his
remaining convictions qualify as a felony.

3

Appeal: 10-4185

Document: 36

Date Filed: 10/04/2011

Page: 4 of 5

United States v. Farrior, 535

clear error its factual findings.
F.3d 210, 223 (4th Cir. 2008).

When Hilliard raised this argument in the district court,
it was foreclosed by this court’s decision in United States v.
Harp, 406 F.3d 242 (4th Cir. 2005).

Subsequently, however, this

court overruled Harp with the en banc decision in Simmons, in which
the court determined that the evaluation of whether a particular
offense was a felony must focus on the maximum sentence for which a
particular

defendant

was

eligible,

in

light

of

his

criminal

history, rather than the maximum sentence that could be imposed on
a defendant with the worst possible criminal record.

Simmons, 2011

WL 3607266 at *6.
In light of the decision in Simmons, we conclude that
Hilliard’s argument has merit.

We therefore vacate the district

court’s sentence and remand the case to the district court for
resentencing.

Further,

because

the

record

on

appeal

does

not

address Hilliard’s prior state record level or whether the state
sentencing

court

circumstances,

we

made
do

findings
not

of

express

aggravating
an

opinion

or
on

mitigating
whether

the

convictions qualify as career offender predicates and leave that
determination for the district court on remand.

We deny Hilliard’s

counsel’s motion to withdraw as counsel.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in
this case and have found no other meritorious issues for appeal.
We

therefore

affirm

Hilliard’s

conviction,

4

however

vacate

the

Appeal: 10-4185

Document: 36

Date Filed: 10/04/2011

sentence, and remand for resentencing.

Page: 5 of 5

This court requires that

counsel inform Hilliard, in writing, of the right to petition the
Supreme Court of the United States for further review.

If Hilliard

requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a
petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court
for leave to withdraw from representation.

Counsel’s motion must

state that a copy thereof was served on Hilliard.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal
before

contentions
the

court

are

adequately

and

argument

presented

would

not

in
aid

the
the

materials
decisional

process.

AFFIRMED IN PART,
VACATED IN PART, AND REMANDED

5