US v. David Hill
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:10-cr-00013-NCT-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998638847].. [10-5091]
Appeal: 10-5091
Document: 24
Date Filed: 07/25/2011
Page: 1 of 4
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-5091
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
DAVID ALAN HILL,
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. (1:10-cr-00013-NCT-1)
Submitted:
July 21, 2011
Before NIEMEYER and
Senior Circuit Judge.
GREGORY,
Decided:
Circuit
Judges,
July 25, 2011
and
HAMILTON,
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, John A. Dusenbury, Jr.,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina,
for Appellant. Michael Francis Joseph, Terry Michael Meinecke,
Assistant United States Attorneys, Greensboro, North Carolina,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 10-5091
Document: 24
Date Filed: 07/25/2011
Page: 2 of 4
PER CURIAM:
David Alan Hill appeals the 162-month sentence imposed
following
a
interstate
guilty
plea
commerce
to
and
relation to robbery.
two
counts
brandishing
a
of
robbery
firearm
affecting
during
and
in
On appeal, Hill’s counsel has filed a
brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in
which
he
appeal
concludes
but
sentence.
that
questions
there
the
are
no
meritorious
substantive
issues
reasonableness
of
for
the
Hill was informed of his right to file a supplemental
pro se brief, but he has failed to file one.
We affirm.
Hill contends that the sentencing court made improper
inferences
from
personality
the
when
it
evidence
imposed
a
regarding
sentence
his
at
susceptible
the
top
of
the
advisory Sentencing Guidelines range.
When reviewing a sentence
for
take
substantive
reasonableness,
totality of the circumstances.”
38,
51
(2007).
We
we
into
account
“the
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S.
accord
a
sentence
within
a
properly-calculated Guidelines range an appellate presumption of
reasonableness.
(4th Cir. 2008).
See United States v. Abu Ali, 528 F.3d 210, 261
Such a presumption is rebutted only by showing
“that the sentence is unreasonable when measured against the [18
U.S.C.A.] § 3553(a) [(West 2000 & Supp. 2011)] factors.”
States
v.
Montes-Pineda,
445
F.3d
(internal quotation marks omitted).
2
375,
379
(4th
Cir.
United
2006)
Appeal: 10-5091
Document: 24
After
Date Filed: 07/25/2011
reviewing
the
Page: 3 of 4
record,
we
conclude
that
the
district court properly analyzed the arguments presented by Hill
and
appropriately
Guidelines
imposed
range.
The
a
sentence
court
at
the
considered
top
the
of
the
mitigating
circumstances raised by Hill and rejected the contention that
they
supported
a
lower
sentence.
Moreover,
the
court
noted
that, in the absence of Hill’s cooperation, the court may have
accepted
the
variance.
probation
officer’s
recommendation
Finally,
Hill
received
the
Taking
into
account
the
requested.
of
an
sentence
upward
which
he
of
the
totality
circumstances and the court’s explicit consideration of Hill’s
arguments,
we
can
find
no
abuse
of
discretion,
and
so,
we
conclude that Hill’s sentence is substantively reasonable.
In
accordance
with
Anders,
we
reviewed
record in this case and found no meritorious claims.
we affirm the district court’s judgment.
the
entire
Therefore,
This court requires
that counsel inform his client, in writing, of the right to
petition
the
Supreme
Court
of
the
United
States
for
further
review.
If the client requests that a petition be filed, but
counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then
counsel
may
move
representation.
was
served
on
in
this
court
for
leave
to
withdraw
from
Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof
the
client.
We
dispense
with
oral
argument
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented
3
Appeal: 10-5091
Document: 24
Date Filed: 07/25/2011
Page: 4 of 4
in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional 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?