Court Opinion

ID: 9910661
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-16 21:00:32.342745+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:53:43.058616
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4396      Doc: 34         Filed: 12/15/2023     Pg: 1 of 3

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 22-4396

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        WILLIAM HINTON, a/k/a Abu Twoseventeen,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at
        Wheeling. John Preston Bailey, District Judge. (5:21-cr-00024-JPB-JPM-1)

        Submitted: November 30, 2023                                Decided: December 15, 2023

        Before WYNN and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Scott C. Brown, SCOTT C. BROWN LAW OFFICE, Wheeling, West
        Virginia, for Appellant. William Ihlenfeld, United States Attorney, Shawn M. Adkins,
        Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,
        Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4396         Doc: 34          Filed: 12/15/2023      Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               William Hinton appeals the 180-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea

        to conspiracy to distribute and possess with the intent to distribute cocaine base, cocaine

        hydrochloride, methamphetamine, and heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(b)(1)(C),

        846; and distribution of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C). On

        appeal, Hinton contends that the district court procedurally erred by, among other things,

        basing its sentencing decision on unsupported factual findings. For the reasons that follow,

        we vacate Hinton’s sentence and remand for resentencing.

               We review a defendant’s sentence for reasonableness, applying “a deferential abuse-

        of-discretion standard.” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007). “In selecting a

        sentence, a court may rely on aggravating—or mitigating—facts found by only a

        preponderance of the evidence.” United States v. Legins, 34 F.4th 304, 325 (4th Cir.), cert.

        denied, 143 S. Ct. 266 (2022). “We review those factual findings for clear error.” Id.

               The district court’s sentencing decision rested primarily on Hinton’s criminal

        history and his tendency to recidivate. Notably, though, the court also accorded some

        weight to the fact that Hinton’s coconspirators “would talk [to law enforcement] about

        everybody else” involved in the conspiracy, yet “nobody would talk about Mr. Hinton.”

        (J.A. 1 60). From this, the court inferred that Hinton’s coconspirators “were afraid of

        [him].” (J.A. 60). On appeal, Hinton contends that the record does not support the district

               1
                   “J.A.” refers to the joint appendix filed in this appeal.

                                                         2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4396        Doc: 34         Filed: 12/15/2023      Pg: 3 of 3

        court’s finding that the coconspirators refused to talk about him. As a result, Hinton claims,

        the inference drawn from this finding is baseless speculation.

               From our review of the record, we are unable to discern the basis for the district

        court’s statement that “nobody would talk about Mr. Hinton.” (J.A. 60). Consequently,

        we cannot meaningfully review whether the district court erred by concluding that Hinton

        instilled fear in his coconspirators. 2 And where, as here, the district court’s sentencing

        explanation is inadequate, we have broad discretion to “send the case back to the district

        court for a more complete explanation.” Chavez-Meza v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1959,

        1965 (2018).

               Accordingly, we vacate Hinton’s sentence and remand for resentencing. 3 We

        dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

        presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional

        process.

                                                                       VACATED AND REMANDED

               2
                   We recognize that, having presided over the prosecutions of several of Hinton’s
        coconspirators, the district court might have drawn from its familiarity with these
        proceedings when finding that the coconspirators had declined to talk about Hinton. But
        “an appellate court may not guess at the district court’s rationale, searching the record for
        . . . clues that might explain a sentence.” United States v. Perez-Paz, 3 F.4th 120, 128 (4th
        Cir. 2021) (internal quotation marks omitted). Thus, we leave it to the district court to
        clarify this issue.
               3
                   In light of this disposition, we do not reach Hinton’s other sentencing challenges.

                                                       3