US v. George Hill, No. 10-4102 (4th Cir. 2010)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-4102 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. GEORGE TYRONE HILL, Defendant Appellant.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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: George Tyrone Hill appeals the district court s order revoking his supervised release and sentencing him to twentyfour months in prison. Hill committed five Grade C supervised release See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 7B1.1, p.s. violations. (2009). We affirm. His criminal history category was V, and recommended range of imprisonment was 7-13 months. § 7B1.4(a), p.s. He contends that the the See USSG twenty-four-month sentence is unreasonable. A sentence imposed following revocation of supervised release will statutory States maximum v. sentence be Crudup, imposed affirmed if and is 461 F.3d upon it not is within plainly 433, revocation applicable unreasonable. 439-40 of the (4th release Cir is United 2006). A 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 sentence is permitted to consider. substantively reasonable Id. at 438-40. if the court Such a stated a proper basis for concluding that the defendant should receive the sentence imposed, up to the statutory maximum. We find that substantively reasonable. Hill s sentence is Id. at 440. procedurally and The district court stated that it had considered the Chapter 7 policy statements, and announced that 2 it would impose a sentence above the recommended sentencing range. Although the court did not cite § 3553(a), the court clearly took into consideration many of § 3553(a) factors when it sentenced Hill. court mentioned behavior, the Hill s need recent to and protect past the the permissible For instance, the history public, of violent and Hill s unsatisfactory conduct while on supervised release. * Hill because the complains district that court his did sentence is unreasonable address his argument not at 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. Accordingly, Hill has not demonstrated that affected the alleged error * his substantial rights, and 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 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 adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials decisional process. AFFIRMED 4