Opinion ID: 169753
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: M ethod Used to Calculate Sentence

Text: Although his argument is unclear, it appears Hill also attacks the method by which his sentence was calculated under the advisory guideline system. Hill takes issue with the use of his past felony convictions to establish a base offense level and then used again to establish his Criminal History category. He argues this punishes him for his past offenses rather than for the offenses to which he pled guilty. Citing Gipson v. Jordan, 376 F.3d 1193, 1198-99 (10th Cir. 2004) (in light of double jeopardy protection, sentence may punish current offense which is aggravated by recidivism, but cannot serve as additional punishment for past offenses), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 1030 (2005) . Hill did not raise this claim with the district court, so we review it only for plain error. See Torres-Duenas, 461 F.3d at 1182-83 (“[W ]hen the defendant fails to object to the method by which the sentence was determined, . . . we review only for plain error.”). Hill cannot overcome a plain error analysis because there is no error. The answ er comes from the case cited by Hill: [T]he Supreme Court has explicitly articulated that enhanced punishment for recidivist conduct does not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause. That is, in upholding recidivism statutes, the C ourt has explicitly articulated that an enhanced punishment imposed for a later offense based on earlier offenses ‘is not to be viewed as either a -5- new jeopardy or additional penalty for the earlier crimes,’ but instead as ‘a stiffened penalty for the latest crime, which is considered to be an aggravated offense because a repetitive one.’ Gipson, 376 F.3d at 1199 (citing Gryger v. Burke, 334 U.S. 728, 732 (1948)); see also Nichols v. United States, 511 U .S. 738, 747 (1994) (“Enhancement statutes, whether in the nature of criminal history provisions such as those contained in the Sentencing Guidelines, or recidivist statutes that are commonplace in state criminal laws, do not change the penalty imposed for the earlier conviction.”). Hill is not being punished for his past crimes, but is receiving a stiffened penalty for his latest crime. AFFIRM ED. FOR TH E CO UR T: Terrence L. O’Brien