Legal Opinion

United States v. David Hill

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Decided January 28, 2016No. 14-10509Unpublished

1Opinion of the Court

MEMORANDUM **

David Charles Hill appeals from the district court’s order denying his motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Reviewing de novo, see United States v. Leniear, 574 F.3d 668, 672 (9th Cir.2009), we affirm.

As Hill does not dispute, he is ineligible for a sentence reduction under Amendments 706 and 750 to the Sentencing Guidelines because he was sentenced as a career offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1. See United States v. Charles, 749 F.3d 767, 770-71 (9th Cir.2014). Hill argues, however, that the statutory amendments…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Dorsey v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 2012
  2. Federal Communications Commission v. Fox Television Stations, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 2012
  3. United States v. LeniearCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2009
  4. United States v. Yale AugustineCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2013
  5. United States v. BaptistCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2011

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API