United States v. Fuquan Hill

── United States v. Fuquan Hill ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit Date: April 09, 2026 Category: General NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ____________ No. 25-1235 ____________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. FUQUAN HILL, Appellant ____________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (D.C. Criminal No. 1:23-cr-00407-001) Chief District Judge: Honorable Renee M. Bumb ____________ Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) on March 19, 2026 Before: MATEY, FREEMAN and CHUNG, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed: April 9, 2026) _______________ OPINION * _______________ * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. FREEMAN, Circuit Judge. Fuquan Hill pleaded guilty to a drug offense and was sentenced to 119 months’ imprisonment. On appeal, he argues that the District Court impermissibly confined his right of allocution. Because any error with respect to his right of allocution was not plain, we will affirm the judgment. I The facts underlying Hill’s conviction are undisputed. In 2021, law enforcement officers saw Hill sell drugs, arrested him, and found hundreds of envelopes and vials of drugs in his fanny pack. He was charged with possession with intent to distribute controlled substances, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(C). Hill and the government entered a written plea agreement under which Hill would plead guilty to the charge and be sentenced to between 60 to 78 months’ imprisonment followed by three years of supervised release. The District Court accepted Hill’s guilty plea in May 2023 but reserved its decision about whether to accept the agreed-upon sentence. Meanwhile, the Probation Office calculated an advisory Sentencing Guidelines range of 151 to 188 months’ imprisonment, accounting for the career offender sentencing enhancement. Despite that Guidelines range, the government argued to the court that a sentence between 60 and 78 months’ imprisonment was appropriate under the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. For his part, Hill argued for a 60-month sentence. In May 2024, the District Court informed the parties that it was rejecting their plea agreement. Three months later, the parties entered into a new agreement. In it, they 2 stipulated that a sentence of 77 to 96 months’ imprisonment is reasonable given the § 3553(a) factors. However, unlike the prior agreement, this stipulated range would not bind the District Court. Hill pleaded guilty pursuant to the new plea agreement in January 2025, and the court proceeded immediately to sentencing. After hearing from counsel, the court asked Hill if he wished to address the court. Hill said yes and proceeded to say he was “not giving excuses” and was “tak[ing] all the responsibility for everything [he] did.” App. 105–06. Then the following exchange occurred: DEFENDANT: But . . . me growing up, it was hard. But I’m not going to blame that either, you know what I mean? Because I’m grown now, you know, and – COURT: When are you going to learn your lesson? DEFENDANT: When? COURT: Yeah. D