United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Dallas Division
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
L. HORAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
David Hill, a federal prisoner, filed pro se a
motion for 2 level reduction (Amendment 782) [Dkt. No. 148]
(the “Motion”). Senior United States District
Judge A. Joe Fish referred the Motion to the undersigned
United States magistrate judge for hearing, if necessary, and
for recommendation under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b).
See Dkt. No. 149.
undersigned enters these findings of fact, conclusions of
law, and recommendation that, to the extent that Hill
requests reconsideration of the Court's denial of his
motion for sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. §
3582(c)(2), reconsideration should be denied and, to the
extent that Hill raises a post-conviction challenge to the
initial calculation of his guideline sentence, that challenge
is made through an unauthorized successive motion under 28
U.S.C. § 2255, and the Court, construing the Motion as
such, should transfer it to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit for appropriate action.
Court should further direct the Clerk of the Court to open
for statistical purposes a new Section 2255 case (nature of
suit 510 directly assigned, per Special Order 3-250, to Judge
Fish and the undersigned) and close the same on the basis of
any order accepting or adopting this recommendation.
Court recounted in August 2018, when Hill sought to again
attack his criminal judgment, relying that time on a recent
decision from the United States Supreme Court to argue that
this Court erred in calculating his sentence under the United
States Sentencing Guidelines,
[a] jury found Hill guilty of conspiracy to manufacture and
possess with the intent to distribute methamphetamine.
See United States v. Hill, 3:03-cr-159-G (02) (N.D.
Tex.), Dkt. No. 68. He was sentenced to prison for 360 months
in 2003. See id.
After his criminal judgment was affirmed on direct appeal,
see United States v. Hill, 623 Fed.Appx. 200 (5th
Cir. 2015), Hill filed his first Section 2255 motion, see
Hill v. United States, 3:07-cv-594-G (N.D. Tex.). The
Court denied that motion on its merits. See Hill v.
United States, 3:07-cv-594-G (N.D. Tex.), Dkt. No. 12.
Hill later filed a successive Section 2255 motion, which the
Court transferred to the United States Court of Appeals for
the Fifth Circuit. See Hill v. United States,
3:13-cv-4456-G-BN (N.D. Tex.), Dkt. No. 7. Hill appealed that
transfer, and the Fifth Circuit affirmed this Court's
judgment. See Hill v. United States, 623 Fed.Appx.
200, 201 (5th Cir. 2015).
Hill v. United States, No. 3:18-cv-2127-G-BN, 2018
WL 4471791, at *1 (N.D. Tex. Aug. 21, 2018), rec.
accepted, 2018 WL 4471706 (N.D. Tex. Sept. 17, 2018),
authorization to file a successive Section 2255
motion dismissed, No. 18-11240 (5th Cir. Nov. 1, 2018).
applicable here, the Court denied Hill's 2016 motion to
reduce his sentence under Section 3582(c)(2) based on
retroactive 2014 Drug Guidelines Amendment 782, after the
probation office found that Amendment 782 did not have the
effect of lowering Hill's applicable guideline sentence -
although his total offense level dropped by 2 points (from 41
to 39), the guideline imprisonment range remained 360 months
to Life. See Dkt. Nos. 137, 138, 139, 140, &
now contends, through the Motion, that, “had there not
been plain error in the calculation of the Sentencing
Guidelines in my case, I would qualify for Amendment
782.” Dkt. No. 148 at 2. In support, he argues that an
error exists in the initial presentence report's
calculation of his base offense level (based on the drug
amount for which he was held accountable). See Id.
Standards and Analysis
the Court should deny Hill's request to reconsider its
denial of his 2016 Section 3582(c)(2) motion based on
Amendment 782. As the United States Court of Appeals for the
Eleventh Circuit observed in a related context, in reducing a
sentence under Section 3582(c)(2), the district court may not
reconsider other components of a defendant's guideline
sentence calculation not affected by ...