United States v. Hill, No. 17-2425 (8th Cir. 2019)

Annotate this Case

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence after he pleaded guilty to unlawful possession of ammunition as a previously convicted felon. The court held that defendant's prior Missouri drug convictions qualified as serious drug offenses under the Armed Career Criminal Act and he therefore had three prior qualifying convictions to be sentenced as an armed career criminal. The court explained that United States v. Bynum, 669 F.3d 880 (8th Cir. 2012), held that a knowing offer to sell drugs in Minnesota is a crime "involving" the distribution of drugs, because it is "related to or connected with" drug distribution.

Court Description: Per Curiam - Before Colloton, Gruender and Grasz, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. The district court did not err in sentencing defendant as an armed career criminal because his prior Missouri drug convictions qualified as serious drug offenses within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 924(e)(2)(A)(ii) - see U.S. Bynum, 669 F.3d 880 (8th Cir. 2012).

Download PDF

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 17-2425 ___________________________ United States of America, lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee, v. Joseph L. Hill, lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant. ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City ____________ Submitted: September 24, 2018 Filed: January 10, 2019 [Published] ____________ Before COLLOTON, GRUENDER, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Joseph Hill pleaded guilty to unlawful possession of ammunition as a previously convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The district court1 1 The Honorable Beth Phillips, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri. determined that Hill qualified as an armed career criminal under the Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1), because he had sustained three prior convictions for “a serious drug offense” within the meaning of § 924(e)(2)(A)(ii). The court therefore sentenced him to the statutory minimum term of fifteen years’ imprisonment. Hill argues on appeal that his prior convictions under Missouri law do not qualify as serious drug offenses, so he is not an armed career criminal, and that the maximum punishment for his offense is therefore only ten years’ imprisonment. See id. § 924(a)(2). In concluding that Hill was an armed career criminal, the district court cited four prior convictions under Missouri Revised Statutes § 195.211.1 (1989), which criminalized the distribution, delivery, manufacture, or production of a controlled substance. “Delivery” includes both the sale of a controlled substance and the “offer therefor.” See Mo. Rev. Stat. §§ 195.010(8) and 195.010(36) (1997). Hill observes that the definition of “serious drug offense” under § 924(e)(2)(A)(ii) requires an offense under state law “involving manufacturing, distributing, or possessing with intent to manufacture or distribute” a controlled substance. He argues that a state crime involving merely an offer to sell drugs does not qualify. Hill’s argument is foreclosed by the reasoning of United States v. Bynum, 669 F.3d 880 (8th Cir. 2012). There, we held that a knowing offer to sell drugs in Minnesota is a crime “involving” the distribution of drugs, because it is “related to or connected with” drug distribution. Id. at 886 (quoting United States v. Vickers, 540 F.3d 356, 365 (5th Cir. 2008)). United States v. Wadena, 895 F.3d 1075 (8th Cir. 2018), reiterated that an offer to sell drugs is a serious drug offense under the Act. Id. at 1077. For the same reasons, the district court properly counted Hill’s convictions under a Missouri statute that forbade an offer to sell controlled substances. With three prior convictions for a serious drug offense, Hill qualified as -2- an armed career criminal and was subject to the mandatory minimum term of fifteen years’ imprisonment. The judgment of the district court is affirmed. ______________________________ -3-

Primary Holding

Defendant's prior Missouri drug convictions qualified as serious drug offenses under the Armed Career Criminal Act and he therefore had three prior qualifying convictions to be sentenced as an armed career criminal.

Disclaimer: Justia Annotations is a forum for attorneys to summarize, comment on, and analyze case law published on our site. Justia makes no guarantees or warranties that the annotations are accurate or reflect the current state of law, and no annotation is intended to be, nor should it be construed as, legal advice. Contacting Justia or any attorney through this site, via web form, email, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship.

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.