United States v. Hill, No. 17-35719 (9th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this Case
The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to vacate his sentence under 28 U.S.C. 2255 in light of Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015). Defendant argued that Johnson established that he was ineligible for a sentencing enhancement under the Armed Career Criminal Act; and, but for alleged misinformation that he was eligible for such an enhancement, he might not have entered a plea agreement.
The panel rejected defendant's argument and held that he failed to show that the alleged misinformation about his ACCA eligibility was "demonstrably made the basis for the sentence." In this case, the record established that defendant's potential eligibility for an ACCA enhancement was not before the sentencing court, and defendant's personal concerns and motivation for entering into the plea agreement did not suffice to establish that the district court made an error of constitutional magnitude.
Court Description: 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The panel affirmed the district court’s denial of Anthony James Hill’s motion to vacate his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 in light of Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015). Hill claimed that Johnson established that he was ineligible for a sentencing enhancement under the Armed Career Criminal Act; and that but for alleged misinformation that he was eligible for such an enhancement, he might not have entered a plea agreement stating that he should be sentenced to between 57 and 71 months imprisonment, and the district court, in turn, might have imposed a different sentence. The panel rejected Hill’s argument because he failed to show that the alleged misinformation about his ACCA eligibility was “demonstrably made the basis for the sentence.” The panel wrote that Hill’s potential eligibility for an ACCA enhancement was not before the sentencing court, and Hill’s personal concerns and motivation for entering into the plea agreement do not suffice to establish that the district court made an error of constitutional magnitude. UNITED STATES V. HILL 3
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.