United States of America v. David Hill

UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
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 of 3 --

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 of 3 --