Court Opinion

ID: 9403968
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-21 21:00:56.986099+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:10.180210
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7438      Doc: 12         Filed: 06/20/2023    Pg: 1 of 3

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-7438

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        DAVID HILL,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
        Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior District Judge. (1:01-cr-00191-CMH-1)

        Submitted: June 15, 2023                                          Decided: June 20, 2023

        Before DIAZ, RICHARDSON, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        David Hill, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-7438        Doc: 12       Filed: 06/20/2023     Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               David Hill appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241

        petition and denying other motions Hill filed in his criminal case. On appeal, Hill

        challenges only the district court’s rejection of his § 2241 petition, which we review de

        novo. Fontanez v. O’Brien, 807 F.3d 84, 86 (4th Cir. 2015). Although the district court

        arguably misconstrued Hill’s petition, we affirm the denial order because the asserted

        claims fail as a matter of law, and “we may affirm a district court’s ruling on any ground

        apparent in the record.” United States ex rel. Drakeford v. Tuomey, 792 F.3d 364, 375 (4th

        Cir. 2015).

               Specifically, Hill’s claim for sentencing relief based on § 403(a) of the First Step

        Act of 2018 fails because that statutory change does not apply retroactively to cases on

        collateral review. See United States v. Wheeler, 886 F.3d 415, 429 (4th Cir. 2018) (setting

        forth four-part test to satisfy the requirements of the savings clause of 28 U.S.C.

        § 2255(e)). * Next, while Hill’s claim based on United States v. Simmons, 649 F.3d 237

        (4th Cir. 2011) (en banc), satisfies Wheeler, upon review, we conclude that Simmons is

        inapplicable here.    Hill asserted a Simmons-based challenge to his career offender

        designation, which was predicated, in relevant part, on Hill’s 1996 Maryland conviction

        for fourth-degree burglary. Although Hill received only a three-month sentence, under the

        then-applicable Maryland statute, this offense carried a statutory maximum three-year

               *
                  We observe that Hill’s claim under the First Step Act remains pending in the
        district court as the subject of Hill’s motion for compassionate release. See United States
        v. Hill, No. 1:01-cr-00191-CMH-1 (E.D. Va., PACER No. 372).

                                                    2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-7438         Doc: 12      Filed: 06/20/2023     Pg: 3 of 3

        prison term. See Green v. State, 705 A.2d 133, 137 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1998) (observing

        that fourth-degree burglary, in violation of Md. Code, Art. 27, § 32, was punishable by up

        to three years’ imprisonment). Because Hill does not have a viable Simmons challenge to

        his career offender designation, there is no basis for remanding this matter to the district

        court for further consideration under Wheeler.

               Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order denying the § 2241 petition, see

        United States v. Hill, No. 1:01-cr-00191-CMH-1 (E.D. Va. Sept. 21, 2022), for the

        identified reasons. 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.

                                                                                     AFFIRMED

                                                     3