Professional Documents
Culture Documents
United States v. Urchel Hill, 4th Cir. (2013)
United States v. Urchel Hill, 4th Cir. (2013)
United States v. Urchel Hill, 4th Cir. (2013)
No. 13-4262
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder,
District Judge. (1:12-cr-00329-TDS-1)
Submitted:
Decided:
PER CURIAM:
Urchel Lavoy Hill appeals his conviction after he pled
guilty to filing a false tax return, in violation of 26 U.S.C.
7206(1)
(2006),
imprisonment.
and
Hills
his
sentence
counsel
has
of
filed
thirty-six
brief
months
pursuant
to
downward
adjustment
for
acceptance
of
responsibility
and
We
affirm.
Hills
counsel
raises
as
potential
issue
the
the
defendant
of,
and
confirms
that
the
defendant
ensure
not
that
the
plea
was
voluntary
and
the
result
of
Fed.
R.
Crim.
P.
11(b)(2).
Additionally,
the
court
must
Fed. R.
Crim. P. 11(b)(3).
Because Hill did not seek to withdraw his guilty plea
or
otherwise
preserve
any
alleged
Rule
11
error
by
timely
United
Upon our
The court
ensured that the plea was knowing and voluntary and supported by
an independent factual basis.
119-20.
plain
Thus,
we
discern
no
error
and
affirm
Hills
conviction.
Next, Hill and his counsel question the calculation of
the Guidelines range and the reasonableness of the sentence.
We
41
(2007).
committed
no
We
first
significant
procedural
that
the
error,
district
such
as
court
improper
the
18
U.S.C.
3553(a)
(2012)
find
examine
the
the
sentence
procedurally
substantive
factors,
inadequate
reasonableness
3
and
of
we
the
also
If
must
sentence,
Id.
defendant
bears
the
burden
to
rebut
the
presumption
by
F.3d
375,
379
(4th
Cir.
2006)
Hill
complains
(internal
quotation
marks
district
court
omitted).
Although
that
the
or
admitted
argument.
Cir.
him,
we
have
previously
rejected
this
2011)
district
by
(collecting
court
erred
cases).
by
Hill
declining
to
also
award
suggests
an
that
acceptance
the
of
of
responsibility
extraordinary
3C1.1
United
and
States
case[]
3E1.1
v.
in
may
because
which
adjustments
apply.
Bartko,
728
Hills
USSG
F.3d
case
under
3E1.1
327,
was
345
not
both
cmt.
(4th
an
[USSG]
n.4;
Cir.
see
2013)
four-year
period,
Hill
stipulated
to
the
restitution
Hill
suggests
unreasonable
sentence
on
his
because
first
that
he
his
received
criminal
sentence
is
the
statutory
conviction.
Because
Hill
afforded
has
not
such
rebutted
sentences,
substantively reasonable.
Pineda, 445 F.3d at 379.
its
discretion
in
the
we
presumption
conclude
that
of
the
reasonableness
sentence
is
See Susi, 674 F.3d at 289; MontesThus, the district court did not abuse
sentencing
imprisonment.
Hill
to
thirty-six
months
on
appeal.
appeal
We
and
have
therefore
found
affirm
the
no
meritorious
district
issues
courts
for
judgment.
may
move
representation.
in
and
materials
legal
before
Court
for
leave
to
withdraw
from
this
contentions
are
adequately
this
and
argument
Court
presented
would
not
in
the
aid
the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED