US v. Christopher Hill

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:10-cr-00081-WO-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999150845].. [12-4970]

Appeal: 12-4970

Doc: 22

Filed: 07/16/2013

Pg: 1 of 6

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-4970

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
CHRISTOPHER RON HILL,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro.
William L. Osteen,
Jr., Chief District Judge. (1:10-cr-00081-WO-1)

Submitted:

June 28, 2013

Before AGEE and
Circuit Judge.

DIAZ,

Decided:

Circuit

Judges,

and

July 16, 2013

HAMILTON,

Senior

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jonathan Leonard, LAW OFFICE OF JONATHAN LEONARD, Winston-Salem,
North Carolina, for Appellant. Clifton Thomas Barrett, Michael
Francis Joseph, Assistant United States Attorneys, Greensboro,
North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 12-4970

Doc: 22

Filed: 07/16/2013

Pg: 2 of 6

PER CURIAM:
Christopher Hill appeals from the 144-month sentence
imposed

by

the

district

court

after

resentencing.

Hill

was

convicted after pleading guilty to possession with intent to
distribute

cocaine

base,

in

violation

of

21

§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A) (West 1999 & Supp. 2013).

U.S.C.A.

In his first

appeal, we affirmed the conviction but remanded for resentencing
without application of the career offender designation.

Hill’s

counsel has filed an Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
appeal

stating

that

there

are

no

meritorious

issues,

but

questioning whether the district court clearly erred in denying
a reduction for acceptance of responsibility and whether Hill’s
sentence is reasonable.

The Government declined to file a brief

and Hill did not file a pro se supplemental brief.

Finding no

error, we affirm.
Counsel for Hill questions whether the district court
should have granted a reduction for acceptance of responsibility
under

U.S.

Sentencing

Guidelines

Manual

§ 3E1.1

(2011).

review the denial of the adjustment for clear error.
States v. Dugger, 485 F.3d 236, 239 (4th Cir. 2007).

We

United

To receive

a reduction, the defendant must establish, “by a preponderance
of the evidence that he has clearly recognized and affirmatively
accepted

personal

responsibility

for

his

criminal

conduct.”

United States v. Nale, 101 F.3d 1000, 1005 (4th Cir. 1996).
2

Appeal: 12-4970

Doc: 22

Filed: 07/16/2013

Because

the

sentencing

evaluate

a

defendant's

court

Pg: 3 of 6

“is

in

acceptance

of

a

unique

position

responsibility,”

to
USSG

§ 3E1.1 comment. (n.5), this court affords great deference to
the district court’s determination.

Dugger, 485 F.3d at 239.

The court stated at resentencing that Hill had shown
no remorse and had not accepted responsibility for his actions.
The court particularly noted Hill’s actions during the guilty
plea process and that he had attempted to withdraw his guilty
plea several times and had only testified truthfully at the very
end of his testimony at the hearing on the motion to withdraw
the guilty plea.

In light of these circumstances, we conclude

that the district court did not clearly err in determining that
Hill

was

not

entitled

to

an

adjustment

for

acceptance

of

responsibility.
Counsel

also

suggests

that

the

court

review

the

sentence for reasonableness, but ultimately concludes that the
sentence

is

reasonable.

We

review

a

sentence

imposed

by

a

district court under a deferential abuse of discretion standard.
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 46 (2007); United States v.
Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 578 (4th Cir. 2010) (abuse of discretion
standard of review applicable when defendant properly preserves
a

claim

of

sentencing

error

in

district

court

“[b]y

drawing

arguments from [18 U.S.C.A.] § 3553 [(West 2000 & Supp. 2013)]
for a sentence different than the one ultimately imposed”).
3

The

Appeal: 12-4970

Doc: 22

appellate

Filed: 07/16/2013

court

must

begin

Pg: 4 of 6

by

reviewing

the

sentence

for

significant procedural error, including such errors as “failing
to calculate (or improperly calculating) the Guidelines range,
treating the Guidelines as mandatory, failing to consider the
§ 3553(a)

factors,

selecting

a

sentence

based

on

clearly

erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the chosen
sentence.”
errors,

Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.

the

appellate

court

If there are no procedural

then

considers

the

substantive

reasonableness of the sentence, taking into account the totality
of the circumstances.
468,

473

(4th

Cir.

Id.; United States v. Pauley, 511 F.3d
2007).

The

sentence

imposed

must

be

“sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to comply with the
purposes”

of

sentencing.

18

U.S.C.A.

§

3553(a).

A

within-Guidelines sentence is presumed reasonable on appeal, and
the

defendant

bears

the

burden

to

rebut

the

presumption

by

demonstrating that the sentence is unreasonable when measured
against the § 3553(a) factors.

United States v. Montes–Pineda,

445 F.3d 375, 379 (4th Cir. 2006).
At

resentencing,

the

court

reiterated

many

of

its

prior findings, including that Hill’s conduct caused devastation
to the community, and noting the seriousness of the offense,
Hill’s lack of remorse, and the long-term and substantial drug
distribution

network.

The

court

also

recognized

that

Hill

involved two “fine people” who had bright futures ahead of them
4

Appeal: 12-4970

Doc: 22

Filed: 07/16/2013

Pg: 5 of 6

and now have felony convictions.

Finally, the court took notice

of the large number of Hill’s serious prior convictions.

The

court stated that the new Guidelines range was substantially
lower

than

the

original

sentence

in

part

because

of

the

application of the Fair Sentencing Act, which was not available
at the original sentencing.

The court held that 144 months was

sufficient, but not greater than necessary, and was within the
Guidelines

range.

In

light

of

the

totality

of

the

circumstances, the within-Guidelines sentence is reasonable, and
the defendant has not rebutted the presumption of reasonableness
by demonstrating that the sentence is unreasonable when measured
against the § 3553(a) factors.

Montes–Pineda, 445 F.3d at 379.

We have reviewed the entire record in accordance with
Anders for any meritorious issues and found none.
affirm Hill’s sentence.

We therefore

This court requires that counsel inform

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

If Hill 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 Hill.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal

contentions

are

adequately

5

presented

in

the

materials

Appeal: 12-4970

before

Doc: 22

this

court

Filed: 07/16/2013

and

Pg: 6 of 6

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional

process.
AFFIRMED

6