NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _________________
No. 22-1770 _________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
CARLOS C. HILL, Appellant ________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Criminal No. 1-12-cr-00243-001) District Judge: Honorable Sylvia H. Rambo ________________
Argued: June 27, 2023
Before: JORDAN, KRAUSE, and MONTGOMERY-REEVES, Circuit Judges.
(Filed: April 12, 2024)
Lisa B. Freeland Samuel G. Saylor [ARGUED] Office of Federal Public Defender 1001 Liberty Avenue Suite 1500 Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Counsel for Appellant
Gerard M. Karam Jaime M. Keating Carlo D. Marchioli Office of United States Attorney Middle District of Pennsylvania Sylvia H. Rambo United States Courthouse 1501 N 6th Street, 2nd Floor P.O. Box 202 Harrisburg, PA 17102
John-Alex Romano [ARGUED] United States Department of Justice Criminal Division Room 7101 1400 New York Avenue NW Washington, DC 20005 Counsel for Appellee ___________
OPINION* ___________
MONTGOMERY-REEVES, Circuit Judge.
In June 2021, Carlos Hill began a period of supervised release after serving ten
years in prison. He almost immediately violated conditions of his supervised release by
testing positive for cocaine. After several violations, he was arrested and remanded to a
secure inpatient treatment center. After Hill completed the inpatient treatment, he
continued to violate conditions of his supervised release, culminating in the revocation of
his supervised release in April 2022. Upon revocation of his release, the District Court
sentenced him to 12 months and one day of incarceration followed by 12 months of
supervised release. Hill contends that the sentence was unreasonable given his struggles
with addiction and mental health, but for the reasons discussed below, the sentence was
* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent.
2 both procedurally and substantively reasonable. Thus, we will affirm the District Court’s
judgment.
I. BACKGROUND
In March 2013, Hill was convicted of possessing a firearm in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 922(g). He was sentenced to 235 months’ imprisonment followed by five years
of supervised release. In June 2018, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, the District Court
reduced Hill’s sentence to 120 months in prison followed by three years of supervised
release. In June 2021, Hill was released from custody and began his term of supervised
release. The conditions of Hill’s supervised release included, among other things, not
committing another crime, not unlawfully possessing a controlled substance, refraining
from any unlawful use of a controlled substance, submitting for drug testing, living in a
place approved by his probation officer, and allowing his probation officer to visit at any
time.
Shortly after Hill commenced supervised release, he submitted a urine sample that
tested positive for cocaine and admitted that he had used cocaine roughly three days
earlier. A few weeks later, Hill failed to provide a usable urine sample for testing. The
next day, Hill submitted a urine sample that again tested positive for cocaine. From June
to August 2021, Hill’s probation officer tried and failed several times to contact Hill. At
the end of July 2021, the District Court issued a warrant for Hill’s arrest due to alleged
violations of his supervised release. Hill was arrested in Harrisburg soon thereafter.
After his arrest, Hill submitted a urine sample that screened positive for cannabinoids,
cocaine, and synthetic cannabinoids. The same day, Hill appeared in District Court, and
3 the parties agreed that he would benefit from inpatient treatment. Hill was admitted to a
secure inpatient treatment facility at the beginning of September and completed the
inpatient program in early October. By the end of October, Hill’s probation officer could
no longer reach Hill. In November, Hill failed to appear for a drug test, was evicted from
his home, and his whereabouts became unknown.
In January 2022, the District Court issued a superseding warrant for Hill. He was
arrested in March. The same day, the District Court held a preliminary probable cause
hearing regarding the alleged violations of the conditions of Hill’s supervised release.
Hill’s probation officer prepared a Dispositional Report for the District Court ahead of
the final revocation hearing, which set out the relevant statutory and guideline provisions
for revocation and sentencing. Under U.S.S.G. § 7B1.4(a), Hill’s Federal Sentencing
Guidelines range considering his criminal history and supervised release violations was
8–14 months.
The final revocation of supervised release hearing was held in April 2022. At the
hearing, Hill argued that due to the time he was in custody after his August 2022 arrest,
the time he spent in inpatient treatment in September–October 2022, and the time he
spent in custody after his March 2022 arrest, he should not be incarcerated further but
instead should be released from supervision completely. Hill admitted that due to his
mental health issues and struggles with addiction, he “is incredibly difficult to supervise”
and that even if the District Court ordered further treatment or imposed a jail sentence
there was no guarantee that Hill would get and stay sober. App. 84–85. The Government
4 argued that Hill’s relapse after his release from prison showed that Hill needs structure
and that further incarceration would be “therapeutic.” App. 87.
The District Court found that Hill had violated the conditions of his release and
revoked his term of supervision. The District Court sentenced Hill to 12 months and one
day of incarceration followed by 12 months of supervised release. The District Court
justified this sentence as “appropriate in order to provide adequate community protection
and deterrence” and to provide Hill with structure and control because Hill would be “a
big danger to the community and to himself” if he was “turn[ed] loose.” App. 88; 90–91.
Hill appealed.
II. DISCUSSION1
Hill contends that his sentence was procedurally and substantively unreasonable.
Procedurally, “[t]he touchstone of ‘reasonableness’ is whether the record as a whole
reflects rational and meaningful consideration of the factors enumerated in 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a).” United States v. Tomko, 562 F.3d 558, 575 (3d Cir. 2009) (quoting United
States v. Grier, 475 F.3d 556, 571 (3d Cir. 2007) (en banc)) (citing United States v.
Cooper, 437 F.3d 324, 330 (3d Cir. 2006)). The § 3553(a) factors include, among other
things, “the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of
the defendant;” the need for the sentence imposed “to reflect the seriousness of the
1 The District Court had judication under 18 U.S.C. § 3231. This Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _________________
No. 22-1770 _________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
CARLOS C. HILL, Appellant ________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Criminal No. 1-12-cr-00243-001) District Judge: Honorable Sylvia H. Rambo ________________
Argued: June 27, 2023
Before: JORDAN, KRAUSE, and MONTGOMERY-REEVES, Circuit Judges.
(Filed: April 12, 2024)
Lisa B. Freeland Samuel G. Saylor [ARGUED] Office of Federal Public Defender 1001 Liberty Avenue Suite 1500 Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Counsel for Appellant
Gerard M. Karam Jaime M. Keating Carlo D. Marchioli Office of United States Attorney Middle District of Pennsylvania Sylvia H. Rambo United States Courthouse 1501 N 6th Street, 2nd Floor P.O. Box 202 Harrisburg, PA 17102
John-Alex Romano [ARGUED] United States Department of Justice Criminal Division Room 7101 1400 New York Avenue NW Washington, DC 20005 Counsel for Appellee ___________
OPINION* ___________
MONTGOMERY-REEVES, Circuit Judge.
In June 2021, Carlos Hill began a period of supervised release after serving ten
years in prison. He almost immediately violated conditions of his supervised release by
testing positive for cocaine. After several violations, he was arrested and remanded to a
secure inpatient treatment center. After Hill completed the inpatient treatment, he
continued to violate conditions of his supervised release, culminating in the revocation of
his supervised release in April 2022. Upon revocation of his release, the District Court
sentenced him to 12 months and one day of incarceration followed by 12 months of
supervised release. Hill contends that the sentence was unreasonable given his struggles
with addiction and mental health, but for the reasons discussed below, the sentence was
* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent.
2 both procedurally and substantively reasonable. Thus, we will affirm the District Court’s
judgment.
I. BACKGROUND
In March 2013, Hill was convicted of possessing a firearm in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 922(g). He was sentenced to 235 months’ imprisonment followed by five years
of supervised release. In June 2018, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, the District Court
reduced Hill’s sentence to 120 months in prison followed by three years of supervised
release. In June 2021, Hill was released from custody and began his term of supervised
release. The conditions of Hill’s supervised release included, among other things, not
committing another crime, not unlawfully possessing a controlled substance, refraining
from any unlawful use of a controlled substance, submitting for drug testing, living in a
place approved by his probation officer, and allowing his probation officer to visit at any
time.
Shortly after Hill commenced supervised release, he submitted a urine sample that
tested positive for cocaine and admitted that he had used cocaine roughly three days
earlier. A few weeks later, Hill failed to provide a usable urine sample for testing. The
next day, Hill submitted a urine sample that again tested positive for cocaine. From June
to August 2021, Hill’s probation officer tried and failed several times to contact Hill. At
the end of July 2021, the District Court issued a warrant for Hill’s arrest due to alleged
violations of his supervised release. Hill was arrested in Harrisburg soon thereafter.
After his arrest, Hill submitted a urine sample that screened positive for cannabinoids,
cocaine, and synthetic cannabinoids. The same day, Hill appeared in District Court, and
3 the parties agreed that he would benefit from inpatient treatment. Hill was admitted to a
secure inpatient treatment facility at the beginning of September and completed the
inpatient program in early October. By the end of October, Hill’s probation officer could
no longer reach Hill. In November, Hill failed to appear for a drug test, was evicted from
his home, and his whereabouts became unknown.
In January 2022, the District Court issued a superseding warrant for Hill. He was
arrested in March. The same day, the District Court held a preliminary probable cause
hearing regarding the alleged violations of the conditions of Hill’s supervised release.
Hill’s probation officer prepared a Dispositional Report for the District Court ahead of
the final revocation hearing, which set out the relevant statutory and guideline provisions
for revocation and sentencing. Under U.S.S.G. § 7B1.4(a), Hill’s Federal Sentencing
Guidelines range considering his criminal history and supervised release violations was
8–14 months.
The final revocation of supervised release hearing was held in April 2022. At the
hearing, Hill argued that due to the time he was in custody after his August 2022 arrest,
the time he spent in inpatient treatment in September–October 2022, and the time he
spent in custody after his March 2022 arrest, he should not be incarcerated further but
instead should be released from supervision completely. Hill admitted that due to his
mental health issues and struggles with addiction, he “is incredibly difficult to supervise”
and that even if the District Court ordered further treatment or imposed a jail sentence
there was no guarantee that Hill would get and stay sober. App. 84–85. The Government
4 argued that Hill’s relapse after his release from prison showed that Hill needs structure
and that further incarceration would be “therapeutic.” App. 87.
The District Court found that Hill had violated the conditions of his release and
revoked his term of supervision. The District Court sentenced Hill to 12 months and one
day of incarceration followed by 12 months of supervised release. The District Court
justified this sentence as “appropriate in order to provide adequate community protection
and deterrence” and to provide Hill with structure and control because Hill would be “a
big danger to the community and to himself” if he was “turn[ed] loose.” App. 88; 90–91.
Hill appealed.
II. DISCUSSION1
Hill contends that his sentence was procedurally and substantively unreasonable.
Procedurally, “[t]he touchstone of ‘reasonableness’ is whether the record as a whole
reflects rational and meaningful consideration of the factors enumerated in 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a).” United States v. Tomko, 562 F.3d 558, 575 (3d Cir. 2009) (quoting United
States v. Grier, 475 F.3d 556, 571 (3d Cir. 2007) (en banc)) (citing United States v.
Cooper, 437 F.3d 324, 330 (3d Cir. 2006)). The § 3553(a) factors include, among other
things, “the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of
the defendant;” the need for the sentence imposed “to reflect the seriousness of the
1 The District Court had judication under 18 U.S.C. § 3231. This Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742. “This Court reviews the procedural and substantive reasonableness of a district court’s sentence upon revocation of supervised release for abuse of discretion.” United States v. Doe, 617 F.3d 766, 769 (3d Cir. 2010) (citing United States v. Bungar, 478 F.3d 540, 542 (3d Cir. 2007)), overruled on other grounds by Tapia v. United States, 564 U.S. 319 (2011).
5 offense,” to provide “adequate deterrence,” and “to protect the public from further crimes
of the defendant;” the kinds of sentences available and the sentencing range; and the need
to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). “If a sentencing court
followed the appropriate procedures in imposing the sentence, we then look to whether
the sentence itself was substantively reasonable.” Doe, 617 F.3d at 770 (citing Cooper,
437 F.3d at 330). “Absent procedural error, we will affirm the sentencing court ‘unless
no reasonable sentencing court would have imposed the same sentence on that particular
defendant for the reasons the district court provided.’” Id. (quoting Tomko, 562 F.3d at
568).
Here, the record, taken as a whole, shows that the District Court gave “rational and
meaningful consideration of the factors enumerated in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).” Tomko, 562
F.3d at 575 (quoting Grier, 475 F.3d at 571). Before the revocation hearing, Hill’s
probation officer created a Dispositional Report for the District Court that laid out the
allegations regarding the violations of the supervised release conditions as well as Hill’s
personal and criminal history. At the revocation hearing, the District Court heard
testimony from Hill’s probation officer and Hill himself about the violations of the
supervised release conditions, the difficulties with supervising Hill, and Hill’s struggles
since being released from prison. Ultimately, the District Court concluded that to deter
criminal conduct, protect the community from Hill, and protect Hill from himself, a
prison sentence was warranted. Because the District Court gave rational and meaningful
consideration to the relevant § 3553(a) factors, the sentence was procedurally reasonable.
6 Having found no procedural defect, we must next consider whether Hill’s sentence
was substantively reasonable. “As to substantive reasonableness, we note that the . . .
sentence is presumptively reasonable, as it falls within the applicable Guidelines range.”
United States v. Pawlowski, 27 F.4th 897, 912 (3d Cir. 2022). Hill’s sentence was in the
middle of the Guidelines range, and the District Court explained the need to deter Hill
from continuing to repeat criminal conduct and to protect Hill and the community. Based
on these reasons we cannot say that “no reasonable sentencing court would have imposed
the same sentence on [this] particular defendant for the reasons the district court
provided,” making the sentence substantively reasonable. Doe, 617 F.3d at 770. As
Hill’s sentence was both procedurally and substantively reasonable, the District Court did
not abuse its discretion.
III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons discussed above, we will affirm the District Court’s judgment.