United States v. William Hicks, Jr.

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
• Decided: May 22, 2026
• Docket: 25-1557
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION File Name: 26a0230n.06

Case No. 25-1557

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT May 22, 2026 KELLY L. STEPHENS, Clerk ) UNITED STATES of AMERICA, ) Plaintiff-Appellee, ) ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED ) STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR v. ) THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF ) MICHIGAN WILLIAM DAVID HICKS, JR., ) Defendant-Appellant. ) OPINION ) )

Before: BATCHELDER, GRIFFIN, and MATHIS, Circuit Judges.

ALICE M. BATCHELDER, Circuit Judge. After William Hicks entered a guilty plea

to a charge of felon in possession of a firearm, 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 921(a), 924(a)(8), the

district court imposed a 70-month prison sentence based on an advisory Sentencing Guidelines

range of 70 to 87 months. Hicks appeals, contending that the sentence is procedurally and

substantively unreasonable.

In calculating the advisory guidelines range, the district court added four points to the base

offense level, having found by a preponderance of the evidence that Hicks possessed or used the

firearm in connection with another felony offense, namely a kidnapping or an assault. U.S.S.G.

§ 2K2.1(b)(6). Hicks contends that the sentence is procedurally unreasonable because, as he sees

it, the enhancement is not supported by a preponderance of the evidence because it is based solely

on the district court’s crediting the victim’s account of events over his version of events.

“We review procedural-reasonableness challenges for abuse of discretion. In doing so, we

review a district court’s . . . factual findings for clear error.” United States v. Vannelli, 171 F.4th

912, 917 (6th Cir. 2026) (citations omitted). The district court’s assessment of this dispute spans No. 25-1557, United States v. Hicks

eight pages of the sentencing-hearing transcript, in which the court listed several fact-based

reasons why the victim’s version of events was more believable. For example, the victim’s

statements were largely consistent. She accurately described Hicks’s gun and provided

investigators with the precise location where Hicks stored it in his apartment. As the transcript

shows, after considering the parties’ arguments and the evidence presented, the district court made

a sound and justified decision. Finding no error in this decision, we conclude that the sentencing

calculation is procedurally reasonable.

Next, in selecting Hicks’s sentence, the district court heard arguments from counsel, heard

from Hicks, and weighed the § 3553(a) factors. The court selected a sentence of 70 months in

prison, which was the bottom of the advisory range. Hicks contends that “the district court selected

an arbitrary aggregate sentence,” did not weigh the § 3553(a) factors in the way that Hicks would

have, and imposed a sentence that was substantively unreasonable. Apt. Br. at 20.

“We review the substantive reasonableness of a sentence for an abuse of discretion. And

we apply a rebuttable presumption that a within-Guidelines sentence is reasonable.” United States

v. Messersmith, 164 F.4th 523, 528 (6th Cir. 2026) (citation omitted). Hicks wanted the district

court, in weighing the § 3553(a) factors, to view him more favorably and reduce his sentence (to

below the advisory range) by finding that his alleged head injury, mental impairment, and drug

addiction excused his criminal conduct. Hicks “really just disagrees with how the court balanced

the section 3553(a) factors and asks us to rebalance them [which] is simply beyond the scope of

our appellate review.” United States v. Curtis, No. 24-1095, 2025 WL 448945, at *9 (6th Cir. Feb.

10, 2025) (quotation marks, editorial marks, and citations omitted); accord United States v. Drake,

126 F.4th 1242, 1247 (6th Cir. 2005); United States v. Pyles, 904 F.3d 422, 426 (6th Cir. 2018).

For the forgoing reasons, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.