United States v. Hill: Reinforcing the “Independent § 3553(a) Factors” Exception to Guidelines Error on Plain-Error Review

Introduction

In United States v. Hill, No. 24-30669 (5th Cir. Aug. 5, 2025), the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit confronted a familiar yet increasingly contentious problem in federal sentencing: What happens when the district court misapplies the Sentencing Guidelines—but simultaneously and explicitly states that it would impose the same sentence regardless of the Guidelines calculation? Defendant-appellant Martino Antwion Hill, convicted of narcotics distribution and felon-in-possession charges, argued that he was entitled to resentencing because one of his prior Louisiana drug convictions no longer qualified as a “controlled substance offense,” thereby making the Guidelines range (151–180 months) plainly erroneous.

The issues on appeal crystalised into two questions:

• Did the district court plainly err by applying the career-offender enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1(a)?
• If so, did that error affect Hill’s “substantial rights,” the third prong of plain-error review?

The Fifth Circuit agreed that the enhancement was error but concluded that, under the Supreme Court’s framework in Molina-Martinez v. United States, the mistake did not prejudice Hill because the district judge unambiguously relied on 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors—especially Hill’s extensive criminal history—rather than on the erroneous Guidelines range. The panel therefore affirmed the 156-month sentence.

Summary of the Judgment

1. Error Found: Hill’s 2014 Louisiana marijuana conviction encompassed hemp, which federal law excluded from the definition of marijuana in 2018. Under the categorical approach, that conviction could not serve as a predicate controlled-substance offense. Therefore, the Guidelines range was calculated incorrectly, satisfying prongs one and two of the plain-error test (error + plainness).

2. No Effect on Substantial Rights: The panel held that any reasonable probability of a different outcome was negated by the record. The sentencing judge expressly stated: “In the event the guideline determination … is found to be incorrect, that’s what I would impose … based solely on § 3553.”

3. Affirmance Under Plain-Error Review: Because Hill failed on the third prong, the Court exercised its discretion to leave the sentence intact, reaffirming a line of Fifth Circuit cases that consider such judge’s statements dispositive.

Analysis

A. Precedents Cited

The opinion’s intellectual scaffolding rests on three precedent clusters:

1. Supreme Court Guidance – Molina-Martinez v. United States, 578 U.S. 189 (2016): Established that sentencing under an incorrect Guidelines range “can, and most often will” satisfy prong three, yet left open situations where the record shows the court would have imposed the same sentence.
2. Fifth Circuit Cases Applying Molina-Martinez:
   • Hott, 866 F.3d 618 (2017)
   • Castro-Alfonso, 841 F.3d 292 (2016)
   • Nino-Carreon, 910 F.3d 194 (2018)
   • Garcia Miguel, 829 F. App’x 36 (2020)
   • Forbito, 2023 WL 8274528 (Nov. 30, 2023)
   • May, 2022 WL 152506 (Jan. 14, 2022)
   All confirm that an explicit statement from the district court—declaring it would impose the same sentence irrespective of the Guidelines—breaks the causal chain required for prejudice.
3. Controlled Substance Predicate Line – United States v. Minor, 121 F.4th 1085 (5th Cir. 2024): Held Louisiana marijuana statutes overbroad because they covered hemp, thereby continuing the post-2018 trend of invalidating similar state drug predicates.

By synthesising these strands, Hill cements a two-step analytic roadmap: (1) recognise Guidelines error where a state drug statute is broader than federal law, yet (2) scrutinise the sentencing transcript for § 3553(a) independence before finding prejudice.

B. Legal Reasoning

1. Plain-Error Framework. Because Hill failed to object below, review proceeded under Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(b). The Court methodically marched through the four prongs—error, obviousness, effect on substantial rights, and effect on the integrity of the judiciary—stopping at prong three.
2. Application of the Categorical Approach. Under Minor, the panel swiftly concluded that Louisiana’s statute criminalised conduct (hemp) outside federal controlled-substance definitions. The mistake was “plain” even though Minor was decided after Hill’s sentencing; Henderson’s retroactivity for “plainness” settled that point.
3. Prejudice Analysis. The panel treated the district judge’s remarks—both oral and written—as definitive evidence that § 3553(a) factors trumped the Guidelines. It distinguished mere “reference to” from “reliance on” the range, quoting Garcia Miguel.
4. Policy Underpinnings. By emphasising Hill’s extensive criminal history and risk of recidivism, the Court implicitly elevated public-safety considerations over mechanical adherence to the advisory Guidelines, aligning with Booker’s advisory regime.

C. Impact

• Sentencing Litigation: Defendants appealing unpreserved Guidelines errors will now face a higher bar in the Fifth Circuit when the sentencing record contains an “independent § 3553(a) statement.”
• District-Court Practice: Judges aware of Hill’s precedent may prophylactically insulate sentences by explicitly noting that § 3553(a) factors alone warrant the chosen term, thereby limiting future appellate reversals.
• Career-Offender Litigation: While the decision reaffirms that many Louisiana marijuana convictions are non-qualifying, it simultaneously signals that relief depends less on categorical-approach victories and more on contemporaneous objections or a sentencing record devoid of § 3553(a) independence.
• Broader Jurisprudence: Hill contributes to a growing post-Booker jurisprudence that balances the advisory nature of the Guidelines with judicial discretion. The opinion fortifies the Fifth Circuit’s distinct approach, which is slightly more government-friendly than that of some sister circuits, such as the D.C. or Ninth, when assessing prejudice from Guidelines error.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Categorical Approach: A method requiring courts to compare the elements of a prior statute with the “generic” federal definition. If the state law criminalises more conduct than the federal analogue, the conviction cannot be used to enhance a sentence.
• Plain-Error Review: Four-pronged appellate standard for unpreserved errors: (1) error, (2) plain, (3) affects substantial rights (usually means a reasonable probability of a different outcome), and (4) seriously affects the fairness or integrity of judicial proceedings.
• Career-Offender Enhancement: U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1 raises the offense level and criminal-history category if the defendant has two prior “crime of violence” or “controlled substance” felonies.
• § 3553(a) Factors: Statutory considerations including the nature of the offense, the defendant’s history and characteristics, the need for deterrence, public protection, and providing educational or medical care, among others.

Conclusion

United States v. Hill stands at the intersection of two vigorous currents in federal sentencing law: a tightening categorical approach that invalidates many state drug predicates, and an expansive reading of judicial discretion under Booker. While the Fifth Circuit acknowledged the Guidelines error, it elevated the sentencing judge’s express reliance on § 3553(a) factors as a decisive shield against resentencing.

Practitioners should draw three lessons. First, categorical-approach victories are hollow unless the objection is contemporaneously preserved or the record lacks § 3553(a) independence. Second, sentencing judges who wish to immunise their decisions on appeal can do so by clearly articulating § 3553(a) reasons and stating that those reasons alone justify the sentence. Third, the decision fortifies a circuit split trend—Fifth Circuit courts are comparatively less inclined to find prejudice from Guidelines error when the oral and written record is robust.

Ultimately, Hill refines the plain-error doctrine in the sentencing context: Guidelines miscalculations, while legally significant, may be rendered harmless when the district court builds a transparent, § 3553(a)-based scaffolding for its sentence. This precedent will undoubtedly influence litigation strategy, judicial colloquy, and the future trajectory of sentencing appeals within the Fifth Circuit.