United States v. Hill

Case: 26-20054 Document: 32-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/24/2026

United Stats Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit ____________ FILED August 24, 2026 No. 26-20054 Lyle W. Cayce ____________ Clerk United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, versus Marc Anthony Hill, Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:17-CR-7-1 ______________________________ Before Stewart, Willett, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:* Marc Anthony Hill, federal prisoner # 18512-479, seeks to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) from the denial of his motion for a sentence reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Hill contends that the district court failed to provide sufficient reasons for denying his motion, specifically asserting that the district court was required to recalculate his guideline range based on Amendment 821 in accordance with U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10, and that Case: 26-20054 Document: 32-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/24/2026

No. 26-20054

U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(c) was improperly applied under this court’s precedent.

By moving for leave to proceed IFP, Hill is challenging the district court’s certification that the appeal is not taken in good faith. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997).

Hill does not qualify for a sentence reduction under Amendment 821 as a matter of law because he was not assessed status points, he was assessed one criminal history point, and the offense involved the death of someone.

See U.S.S.G. § 4A1.1(e); U.S.S.G. § 4C1.1(a)(1), (a)(4). Hill’s argument that § 2K2.1(c) was improperly applied is misplaced, as § 3582(c)(2) applies only to Guideline amendments made retroactive by the Sentencing Commission.

See Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 826 (2010). We do not consider Hill’s claims, raised for the first time on appeal, that (1) he was entitled to a mitigating role adjustment due to the Government’s judicial admission that Hill was an “average participant” and that the admission invalidated the factual basis supporting the application of the § 2K2.1(c) cross-reference and relevant conduct provisions of U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3, (2) his sentence violates Barrett v. United States, 607 U.S. 128 (2026), and (3) the cumulative effect of all the errors warranted a sentence reduction, see United States v. Pardue, 36 F.3d 429, 431 (5th Cir. 1994); in any event, these claims are not cognizable in a § 3582(c)(2) motion, see Dillon, 560 U.S. at 824-26; United States v. Hernandez, 645 F.3d 709, 712 (5th Cir. 2011).

Thus, Hill fails to raise a nonfrivolous issue as to the denial of his § 3582(c)(2) motion. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983).

His IFP motion is DENIED, and the appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous.

See Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202 n.24; 5th Cir. R. 42.2. Hill’s request for transcripts at the Government’s expense is also DENIED.