US v. David Hill, No. 10-5091 (4th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-5091 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. DAVID ALAN HILL, Defendant - Appellant.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 GREGORY, Decided: Circuit Judges, July 25, 2011 and HAMILTON, Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 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.] ยง 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) After reviewing the 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 in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 4
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
