[00:00:07] Speaker 02:
Thank you, Your Honours.

[00:00:08] Speaker 02:
May it please the court, my name is Anne Voits and I represent defendant appellant Willie Alshahill.

[00:00:13] Speaker 02:
I'd like to reserve three minutes of my time, if possible.

[00:00:17] Speaker 02:
This court should reverse Mr. Hill's conviction because one, the evidence was insufficient.

[00:00:23] Speaker 02:
Two, the court did not give him multiple conspiracies or a specific unanimity instruction, even though the evidence warranted it.

[00:00:30] Speaker 02:
Three, the court should have granted a mistrial for Mr. Hill at the same time that it granted one to his co-defendant.

[00:00:36] Speaker 02:
In the alternative, the court should vacate Mr. Hill's sentence and his condition of supervised release.

[00:00:42] Speaker 02:
I intend to begin by focusing on the trial issues, although of course I'm happy to answer whatever questions the court may have about sentencing.

[00:00:48] Speaker 02:
First, with respect to sufficiency, the two questions here really for the court is what conspiracy was there, if any?

[00:00:56] Speaker 02:
And what was Mr. Hill's connection?

[00:00:57] Speaker 02:
The evidence as to both was insufficient.

[00:01:00] Speaker 02:
In particular, I'd note that the government did not even argue in closing that he had reason to believe that whatever benefits he might get were probably dependent on the success of the entire venture.

[00:01:11] Speaker 02:
And that's because the evidence simply didn't support that.

[00:01:13] Speaker 02:
If you look at the length of the conspiracy alleged, they alleged an 11-month conspiracy, the crux of the evidence that was introduced that actually involved Mr. Hill involved a span of nine days.

[00:01:26] Speaker 02:
The indictment alleged a count that included more than 10 defendants, but in this case, Mr. Hill's connections were with an extremely limited subset of those defendants.

[00:01:37] Speaker 02:
We think that, given that, the evidence is simply insufficient to establish.

[00:01:42] Speaker 03:
I mean, there is case law that says that not every member of the conspiracy needs to understand the full scope of the conspiracy or all the participants or all parts of it, so long as he shares the overall objective and participates in that.

[00:02:01] Speaker 03:
So why isn't that kind of case law dispositive here of the sufficiency issue?

[00:02:07] Speaker 02:
I think it's not just positive here for two reasons.

[00:02:10] Speaker 02:
One is the structure of this particular conspiracy.

[00:02:12] Speaker 02:
To the extent that there was one conspiracy, we'd submit that there wasn't.

[00:02:15] Speaker 02:
There really were multiple conspiracies.

[00:02:18] Speaker 02:
That there was a lack of any connection between Mr. Hill and any sense of an overall agreement.

[00:02:23] Speaker 02:
this court has held repeatedly that what is key when you're looking at something like this where there's really sort of a hub and spoke conspiracy at best is whether there's a rim that connects them and that rim has to be some sense that there's an overall agreement and that the defendant is connected to that and that simply isn't supported here based on these facts and based on the evidence.

[00:02:44] Speaker 03:
Why can't a jury draw from the you know individual

[00:02:48] Speaker 03:
actions and you know some of them are very tenuous but why can't it draw from that a pattern and based on that pattern then infer that there's a broader agreement that ties everything together.

[00:03:03] Speaker 02:
Well this court has done that in cases where there's substantially more evidence than here but we'd submit that here the evidence is so limited.

[00:03:08] Speaker 03:
It was a tough case but the jury, our standard of review under Jackson is very permissive in allowing the jury to make its judgments.

[00:03:18] Speaker 02:
It is permissive, but it still imposes some teeth.

[00:03:21] Speaker 02:
And we think that this case is so far outside the realm of cases where courts have concluded that there is sufficient evidence that this court should reverse.

[00:03:28] Speaker 02:
But even if this court disagrees under the standard of sufficiency of the evidence, then we think turning to the instructional issues, that's a very different standard.

[00:03:36] Speaker 02:
The question there is whether there was enough evidence or some evidence that would support giving an instruction.

[00:03:42] Speaker 03:
But our standard of review for that is plain error.

[00:03:45] Speaker 03:
Right.

[00:03:45] Speaker 02:
I would disagree with respect to the multiple conspiracies instruction.

[00:03:48] Speaker 02:
We agree with you with respect to the specific unanimity instruction, but we think because in this case both defense counsel asked for the multiple conspiracies instruction, it should have been given and the error was preserved.

[00:03:59] Speaker 04:
It's not clear to me.

[00:04:04] Speaker 04:
Maybe you can help me here.

[00:04:05] Speaker 04:
What are the multiple conspiracies?

[00:04:07] Speaker 04:
Is it between the crack and powder cocaine?

[00:04:12] Speaker 04:
Is it between the heroin piece that was set aside?

[00:04:15] Speaker 04:
Can you give us a clear definition of which two conspiracies we should be looking for?

[00:04:21] Speaker 02:
Well, I think the problem is that there isn't.

[00:04:23] Speaker 02:
I mean, that there could be multiple conspiracies, given the sheer number of defendants who are involved, the sort of lack of connection between a number of the events.

[00:04:30] Speaker 02:
If this court looks, for example, at the number of video buys that were involved, not one of them involved Mr. Hill actually playing a role in the transaction.

[00:04:37] Speaker 02:
So I think if you were looking at it, it could be broken down by substance.

[00:04:41] Speaker 02:
It could be broken down by particular groups of defendants.

[00:04:44] Speaker 02:
And we don't think that the evidence lends itself to a conclusion that these are subgroups, but that these are really sort of fragmented groups of people.

[00:04:52] Speaker 04:
Why isn't it a single cocaine conspiracy?

[00:04:55] Speaker 02:
I think because if this court looks at the evidence, it simply doesn't support the existence of one conspiracy as opposed to Mr. Tate potentially conspiring with multiple people independently.

[00:05:06] Speaker 04:
Okay, but this is the trial of Mr. Hill, so Mr. Tate, that's not inconsistent, is that Mr. Tate could be involved in separate conspiracies, again, if the evidence pertaining to Mr. Hill all relate to

[00:05:21] Speaker 04:
cocaine and for his part of the trial, that's nearly all of the evidence that was presented, wasn't it?

[00:05:28] Speaker 02:
I think, Your Honor, that raises two questions.

[00:05:29] Speaker 02:
One, the question of the sufficiency of the evidence that there was a conspiracy, but also Mr. Hill's connection to it.

[00:05:35] Speaker 02:
And I think if the Court looks at what actually is in the record, it's very, very thin.

[00:05:41] Speaker 02:
And I think to contend that that is sufficient to establish his connection to a single conspiracy and to an overall agreement,

[00:05:48] Speaker 02:
just isn't supported by the fact that he joked with someone at one point about being able to sell something for less.

[00:05:57] Speaker 02:
That's more consistent with someone being a competitor rather than a co-conspirator.

[00:06:01] Speaker 02:
The fact that he, you know, I think if this court looks at the evidence that the government relies on, for example, to claim that he served as a lookout,

[00:06:10] Speaker 02:
every time as you sort of start pulling on these threads, we think that the evidence starts falling apart.

[00:06:14] Speaker 02:
And we think that's borne out by the jury's conclusion that you couldn't find Mr. Hill responsible for any of the drug quantities because it wasn't reasonably foreseeable and he wasn't involved.

[00:06:25] Speaker 02:
We think that supports a conclusion that here, what the court should have done was to give the multiple conspiracy instruction and to give a specific unanimity instruction.

[00:06:33] Speaker 03:
Can we say in Anguiano that

[00:06:35] Speaker 03:
a multiple conspiracies instruction is focused on the issue of spillover and that where you have a single defendant, the spillover issue is gone and any remaining issue about whether you're tagging the defendant with the right conspiracy is to be handled by specific unanimity.

[00:06:58] Speaker 03:
So isn't the issue you're getting at really a specific unanimity question and not a multiple conspiracies question?

[00:07:05] Speaker 02:
Well, you know, we'd submit that it's both.

[00:07:07] Speaker 02:
We recognize the language in Anguiano, but in this case, obviously, it goes to the mistrial issue.

[00:07:13] Speaker 02:
Mr. Hill went to trial.

[00:07:13] Speaker 03:
But where's the authority that says that this can be analyzed as a, this, the fact pattern we have here can be analyzed as a multiple conspiracies instruction issue?

[00:07:27] Speaker 02:
I think Lapierre supports it.

[00:07:29] Speaker 02:
I also think that these facts are distinguishable from Anguiano because here Mr. Hill went to trial with Mr. Tate and up until the mistrial and even after much of the evidence went to Mr. Tate and had no connection to Mr. Hill.

[00:07:44] Speaker 03:
But it seemed from the jury instruction colloquy that that, I mean, it had been the concern that because there was a second

[00:07:52] Speaker 03:
heroin conspiracy, and then there was reference to marijuana trafficking, that that was the basis for the multiple conspiracies, and there seemed to be an awareness that that had gone away when, you know, Mr. Tate, there was a mistrial, and then he went forward as a sole defendant.

[00:08:14] Speaker 02:
Well, I'd refer to two things.

[00:08:15] Speaker 02:
One, originally when the instruction was submitted, they did point to the two conspiracies.

[00:08:22] Speaker 02:
But Mr. Tate also had pointed out, and they joined in each other's objections, that the multiple conspiracies would be appropriate because if the jury disbelieved the government's version of the conspiracy, that it would be reasonable to give it then.

[00:08:37] Speaker 02:
And then second, when it came to the ultimate debate about what to give at the end, I think the record, she simply says that she submitted on one of the points.

[00:08:46] Speaker 02:
She recognized that one was no longer valid with the taking out of the prison conspiracy, but submitted on the other.

[00:08:54] Speaker 02:
And we'd say that that is enough to preserve the issue here.

[00:08:58] Speaker 02:
If I might address very briefly the sentencing issues and then reserve the burden of my time and simply like to note that in this case since the resource submitted Mr. Tate was sentenced to 144 months that is not particularly far off Mr. Hill's sentence of 110 months and we think that that in this case supports the fact that

[00:09:18] Speaker 02:
that the sentence imposed, while it was a variance, was not a significant enough variance.

[00:09:23] Speaker 02:
And second, that the supervised release condition should be vacated because the court simply relied on what probation had said and acknowledged that there wasn't much in the record to support it.

[00:09:32] Speaker 02:
With that, I'd ask to reserve the very short balance of my time for rebuttal.

[00:09:35] Speaker 03:
We gave you, we asked a number of questions, so I'll give you two minutes.

[00:09:40] Speaker 03:
Thank you very much, Your Honor.

[00:09:44] Speaker 03:
And we'll hear now from Mr. Pang.

[00:09:53] Speaker 00:
Good morning, Your Honors.

[00:09:53] Speaker 00:
May it please the Court?

[00:09:55] Speaker 00:
Jason Pang on behalf of the United States.

[00:09:57] Speaker 00:
I'm going to start by addressing some of the factual allegations that my colleague made, and then I'll get to the meat of the substance of whether a defendant participated in a single conspiracy.

[00:10:06] Speaker 00:
My colleague said that Mr. Hill's participation in this charged conspiracy only spans nine days.

[00:10:12] Speaker 00:
Respectfully, the government believes that that's not reflected in the record.

[00:10:16] Speaker 00:
In fact, as the paper showed, Defendant Hill was a lookout on June 17th.

[00:10:22] Speaker 00:
He was intercepted on several wires during a wiretap in November and December, and he again appeared in January.

[00:10:28] Speaker 00:
That's not nine days.

[00:10:30] Speaker 00:
That's several months over the course of this entire conspiracy.

[00:10:34] Speaker 00:
With regard to the wire itself, over the course of November and December, as the court is aware, a wire tap only occurs over a shortened period of time as authorized by the court.

[00:10:44] Speaker 00:
In fact, over 30 days, Mr. Hill is intercepted agreeing to distribute drugs

[00:10:51] Speaker 00:
over six times.

[00:10:52] Speaker 00:
Six times over 30 days is not merely sporadic.

[00:10:57] Speaker 00:
That's a pattern.

[00:10:58] Speaker 00:
It's a pattern that evinces a relationship with Mr. Tate.

[00:11:02] Speaker 00:
And specifically, the calls on December 12th shows that he knows that the conspiracy to distribute drugs extends beyond just his relationship with Mr. Tate.

[00:11:13] Speaker 00:
On those calls, there's a co-defendant, co-defendant Aguilar, who tells Mr. Tate that someone's at the store who wants to buy drugs.

[00:11:21] Speaker 00:
Mr. Tate then tells Mr. Aguilar that the defendant, and they refer to the defendant using his gang moniker, smoke, is going to deliver the drugs.

[00:11:28] Speaker 00:
And we know that Mr. Tate and Mr. Hill know that Mr. Aguilar's involved because Mr. Tate tells Mr. Hill, go to the store and deliver the drugs.

[00:11:37] Speaker 00:
That's where Aguilar, and we know from the record, that's where Aguilar's waiting with the drug customer.

[00:11:43] Speaker 00:
That call is also very important and informative because during that call, Mr. Aguilar and Mr. Tate discuss how they're going to engage in a form of fronting.

[00:11:55] Speaker 00:
And in that call, Mr. Tate tells Mr. Aguilar, get the money from the client first.

[00:12:01] Speaker 00:
Smoke, the defendant, will deliver the drugs later.

[00:12:03] Speaker 00:
And the concept of fronting is typically in a drug transaction.

[00:12:07] Speaker 00:
The exchange of drugs happens simultaneously because drugs are illegal.

[00:12:12] Speaker 00:
And there is a lack of trust.

[00:12:14] Speaker 00:
Drug users are addicted to drugs, so they can be dangerous.

[00:12:17] Speaker 00:
That's why the exchange is at the same time.

[00:12:21] Speaker 04:
Here, when there's front... Sir, Mr. Hill's, I think, named, I think I'm correct, one of 32 counts?

[00:12:27] Speaker 04:
Is he, is he named?

[00:12:28] Speaker 00:
He is in the conspiracy count, correct.

[00:12:30] Speaker 04:
Okay.

[00:12:31] Speaker 04:
And I guess I have the same question for you that I asked your friend.

[00:12:35] Speaker 04:
I mean, how are we supposed to parse the you describe it as a drug conspiracy, but there are clearly different locales different drugs different markets different means of transactions How would you best define the conspiracy that was charged and proven here?

[00:12:55] Speaker ?:
I

[00:12:55] Speaker 00:
your honor this was a drug traffic conspiracy from three locations organized by the hoovers now of course the fact that the hoovers the gang was that was excluded sanitized for by trial as the government agreed to but the defendant actually has connections to all three locations and he knows that there are more

[00:13:13] Speaker 00:
than just Mr. Tate involved in all three locations.

[00:13:16] Speaker 00:
On wiretap interceptions on December 9th, defendant Tate tells defendant Hill, the defendant in this case on appeal, that he should deliver drugs to the yard.

[00:13:26] Speaker 00:
That's not the TNN market.

[00:13:28] Speaker 00:
That's not the place where he agreed to deliver drugs on December 12th.

[00:13:31] Speaker 00:
Likewise, on June 7th,

[00:13:33] Speaker 00:
Defendant Taylor's presence when another co-conspirator, Defendant Reed, agrees to sell drugs to a CI.

[00:13:40] Speaker 00:
And we know based on his situation in the store, he's not inside the store, this is June in the South LA, it's very hot, he sits outside

[00:13:48] Speaker 00:
right at the entrance of the store looking outwards.

[00:13:51] Speaker 00:
And we know why he's doing that because of wire interceptions.

[00:13:54] Speaker 00:
We know he looks out for arrivals driving around those three areas.

[00:13:57] Speaker 00:
All three stores, the two stores and the yard, they're all within a one block radius.

[00:14:02] Speaker 00:
And we know that he looks out for arrivals.

[00:14:05] Speaker 00:
He says, do you want me to bounce him out?

[00:14:06] Speaker 00:
When Tate calls him and says, hey, there's someone driving around, check him out, he says,

[00:14:11] Speaker 00:
He looks like he's doing work.

[00:14:12] Speaker 00:
We know he's looking for police raids.

[00:14:14] Speaker 00:
That's the December call where he says, I have my eye out when defendant Tate tells him there's police raiding nearby stores.

[00:14:22] Speaker 00:
So this is all one conspiracy.

[00:14:25] Speaker 00:
It all involves the same time around

[00:14:28] Speaker 00:
that late 2017 and early 2018 involves the same sets of people, although as Judge Collin noted, you don't need to know every single member of the conspiracy.

[00:14:38] Speaker 00:
You don't need to know every single overt act in order to be a knowing member of the conspiracy.

[00:14:43] Speaker 00:
What the law requires is that you know that the conspiracy, the project to distribute drugs, extends beyond the conspiracy you have with the hub defendant.

[00:14:54] Speaker 00:
And here, the evidence is clear that defendant Hill knows that he's not the only spoke in this wheel.

[00:14:59] Speaker 00:
He knows that there's defendant Aguilar.

[00:15:02] Speaker 00:
He knows that there's defendant Reed.

[00:15:04] Speaker 00:
And any other sub-agreements,

[00:15:06] Speaker 00:
or subgroups, as the court previously explained in Shabani, does not eviscerate a single conspiracy.

[00:15:14] Speaker 00:
In fact, this case is stronger than in Shabani, because in Shabani, the defendant in that case delivered drugs to Alaska, and the only knowledge that the defendant knew in that case, that the conspiracy extended beyond his particular role, is that he was present at another exchange between the hub defendant and someone else, and that he was made aware that there was other cocaine.

[00:15:36] Speaker 00:
In this case, the defendant was actively participating with other members of the conspiracy other than the hub defendant.

[00:15:44] Speaker 04:
To sell powder cocaine, cocaine generally, drugs including marijuana and heroin.

[00:15:50] Speaker 04:
How would you draw the line?

[00:15:52] Speaker 00:
So defendant Hill agreed to distribute both powder cocaine and crack cocaine to the conspiracy.

[00:15:59] Speaker 00:
But again, the defendant does not need to know that there was also heroin, although I would say heroin is a separate conspiracy.

[00:16:07] Speaker 00:
As the court noted, heroin was excised from this trial.

[00:16:11] Speaker 00:
There were other drugs at play, but here he understands that the scope of the broad project was to sell drugs from these three Hoover gang controlled areas.

[00:16:21] Speaker 04:
Well, what about the, you referenced two of the locations, the yard and the first market.

[00:16:25] Speaker 04:
Is there any connection to the third market?

[00:16:27] Speaker 00:
Yes, your honor.

[00:16:28] Speaker 00:
On June 7th, defendant was present at the H&E market.

[00:16:32] Speaker 00:
That's the third place.

[00:16:33] Speaker 00:
And that's where he was situated outside in front at the door in the hot LA sun during the summer in South LA, not inside where there is the fan blowing.

[00:16:43] Speaker 00:
And he was looking outside when Mr. Reed left the store to get the drugs from Mr. Tate.

[00:16:49] Speaker 00:
And we know that because we got toll records between the two men.

[00:16:54] Speaker 00:
In fact, defendant is aware, although I would submit that the law does not require him to be aware, that the drugs were being distributed from all three locations.

[00:17:04] Speaker 00:
And he knows that there's more than just one person, more than just Mr. Tate in this conspiracy.

[00:17:11] Speaker 01:
Can you take a moment to address counsel's argument that Hill's sentence is fairly disproportionate relative to his role

[00:17:19] Speaker 01:
in the case and also speak to the appropriateness of the gang-related supervised condition.

[00:17:23] Speaker 00:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:17:24] Speaker 00:
So I will note that the district court here granted a seven-level variance, which is equivalent to 100 months below the bottom line of the guidelines.

[00:17:36] Speaker 00:
And in the colloquy with the defendant, the district court, I think, and I don't think there's any claim of procedural error.

[00:17:43] Speaker 00:
I think the parties agree that the district court was very thorough in evaluating and weighing the different factors here.

[00:17:49] Speaker 00:
The district court here acknowledged Mr. Hill's participation and his limited role in the conspiracy, as well as the mitigating facts submitted by his counsel.

[00:17:59] Speaker 00:
against the fact that the defendant is a career offender and he's a career offender by his own choices.

[00:18:05] Speaker 00:
This isn't just a mere fact where a defendant is solely plagued by the fact that he has drug trafficking convictions.

[00:18:13] Speaker 00:
He was convicted of attempted murder with a handgun.

[00:18:16] Speaker 00:
His history, each and every decade, is convicted of the same crime, which is, I think, in his 20s and his 30s and his 40s, all convicted of drug trafficking offenses.

[00:18:29] Speaker 00:
He's doing it again and again and again.

[00:18:32] Speaker 00:
And so balancing all those factors under 3553A, I think the court came to the right conclusion, which is he doesn't deserve a guideline sentence, or at least the district court believed, even though within a guideline sentence is presumptively reasonable under Cardi.

[00:18:50] Speaker 00:
He gave him a seven-level variance.

[00:18:52] Speaker 00:
That's a hundred-month deduction.

[00:18:55] Speaker 03:
What was the guideline sentence in this case?

[00:18:56] Speaker 00:
It was 210 to 240 months.

[00:19:00] Speaker 00:
It's based on career offender guidelines?

[00:19:01] Speaker 00:
Correct, Your Honor.

[00:19:02] Speaker 00:
I'm gonna quickly touch on the gang conditions.

[00:19:06] Speaker 00:
As the court is aware, the defendant claimed that he was no longer in the gang, and the district court acknowledged that.

[00:19:13] Speaker 00:
He said, I don't think you, I acknowledge the fact that you believe you are no longer in a gang.

[00:19:18] Speaker 00:
However, the record in this case shows that at least as of 2018, the defendant was still in the gang.

[00:19:25] Speaker 00:
Now, this case was, of course, charged in 2020.

[00:19:28] Speaker 00:
The defendant was charged, was sentenced in 2022.

[00:19:31] Speaker 00:
The fact of his recent participation in the gang justifies the district court's imposition of gang conditions.

[00:19:39] Speaker 00:
And that's because of the defendant's own colloquy with the court, his allocution.

[00:19:43] Speaker 00:
In that allocution, the defendant said, I have no reasonable and legitimate means to make money other than to commit illegitimate crimes, because otherwise all I have is government assistance.

[00:19:56] Speaker 00:
And so the district court wanted to restrict the defendant's

[00:20:00] Speaker 00:
wanted to restrict the defendant's temptation to go back to, quote, old haunts, which is what this court has previously stated that is a proper basis to restrict one's liberty in association.

[00:20:12] Speaker 00:
For those reasons, the government requests that this court affirm.

[00:20:16] Speaker 03:
Thank you.

[00:20:17] Speaker 03:
We'll hear a rebuttal from Ms.

[00:20:18] Speaker 03:
Voitz.

[00:20:25] Speaker 02:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:20:26] Speaker 02:
I just have three points to make in rebuttal.

[00:20:28] Speaker 02:
First, I'd ask the court to look at the record as opposed to the government's representations.

[00:20:33] Speaker 02:
For example, the reference to Mr. Tate having a gang nickname.

[00:20:36] Speaker 02:
In the record, it was established that the party stipulated it was a nickname with no connection to a gang.

[00:20:42] Speaker 02:
Second, with connection to the length by expanding it from nine days to 30 or so times and the reported number of six times engaging in drug transactions.

[00:20:52] Speaker 02:
We think the math doesn't math.

[00:20:54] Speaker 02:
If you actually look at what happened, and if you look at the span of those exhibits between December 6th and December 15th, we think that that does not support anything other than an occasional episodic connection between Mr. Tate and Mr. Hill.

[00:21:09] Speaker 02:
And we think that is not enough here.

[00:21:11] Speaker 02:
To the government's point second, we think that you have to have a there there when it comes to the conspiracy.

[00:21:17] Speaker 02:
And that is lacking both as to the existence of a single conspiracy,

[00:21:20] Speaker 02:
and as to Mr. Hill's connection to it.

[00:21:24] Speaker 02:
Compare the number of calls, my friend across the aisle referred to the existence of toll records, so look at those, we'd ask the court.

[00:21:32] Speaker 02:
Look at the number of calls that existed and look at who Mr. Hill is connected to and how often, and we think that simply doesn't support a connection here.

[00:21:41] Speaker 02:
Finally, if I could address the sentencing point, I'd just remind the court that the sentences here for the most part were for Mr. Aguiar, 60 months.

[00:21:50] Speaker 02:
Lopez was 51 months.

[00:21:52] Speaker 02:
Vidal was 15 months.

[00:21:53] Speaker 02:
One defendant was simply sentenced to CASA.

[00:21:57] Speaker 02:
And by comparison, the two ringleaders, the undisputed ringleaders of however many conspiracies there were, Mr. Tate and Mr. Hill, sorry, Mr. Tate and Mr. Reed, were 144 months and 121 months.

[00:22:08] Speaker 02:
compared to Mr. Hill's 110.

[00:22:09] Speaker 03:
Do you know what Mr. Tate's guidelines range was?

[00:22:14] Speaker 02:
I do not.

[00:22:14] Speaker 02:
I'm happy to confirm that and submit that to the court.

[00:22:19] Speaker 03:
The career offender brought him very high and

[00:22:23] Speaker 03:
you know congress directed the sentencing commission to adopt the career offender guideline because it wanted people who just show that they're going to keep committing crimes to get higher sentences he got a huge break off of the career offender guideline and so that maybe that

[00:22:42] Speaker 03:
But the government is arguing is that's what really distinguishes him here.

[00:22:47] Speaker 03:
And so maybe his role wasn't as great, but he had this other very significant aggravating factor.

[00:22:54] Speaker 02:
I think one, if the court looks at Mr. Hill's criminal history, I think much of it is very old.

[00:23:01] Speaker 02:
Second, I'd submit that if this court should look not just at what his guidelines range was for the career offender guideline applied, but also what it would have been without that.

[00:23:12] Speaker 02:
Without it, it would have been 27 to 33 months.

[00:23:15] Speaker 02:
And we'd submit that the sentence that was imposed, 110 months, was unreasonable, and the supervised release condition was also not supported.

[00:23:22] Speaker 04:
Well, just to invert that, did any of the defendants who were sentenced to lesser terms have as extensive a criminal history?

[00:23:32] Speaker 02:
I will have to look and confirm that, Your Honor.

[00:23:36] Speaker 02:
But I'm happy to submit that at a 28-J to this Court.

[00:23:40] Speaker 02:
We certainly think even if that is a distinguishing factor, it doesn't warrant the significant bump in this case and the significant disparity that exists.

[00:23:48] Speaker 02:
If I might submit now.

[00:23:49] Speaker 02:
Thank you, Councillor.

[00:23:50] Speaker 02:
Thank you, Your Honour.

[00:23:51] Speaker 03:
All right.

[00:23:51] Speaker 03:
The case just argued will be submitted for decision.