Background
William David Hicks Jr. entered a guilty plea to a charge of felon in possession of a firearm under Section eighteen United States Code Sections nine hundred twenty-two subsection g one, nine hundred twenty-one subsection a, and nine hundred twenty-four subsection a eight. The district court imposed a seventy-month prison sentence based on an advisory Sentencing Guidelines range of seventy to eighty-seven months. The court applied a four-point enhancement under United States Sentencing Guidelines Section two K two point one subsection b six, finding by a preponderance of the evidence that Hicks possessed or used the firearm in connection with another felony offense, specifically a kidnapping or an assault. Hicks appealed, arguing the sentence was procedurally and substantively unreasonable.
The court’s reasoning
The court reviewed the procedural reasonableness challenge for abuse of discretion, examining the district court’s factual findings for clear error. The district court’s assessment of the dispute regarding the enhancement spanned eight pages of the sentencing hearing transcript, where the court listed several fact-based reasons why the victim’s version of events was more believable, including the consistency of her statements and her accurate description of the firearm. The appellate court found the district court made a sound and justified decision, concluding the sentencing calculation was procedurally reasonable. Regarding substantive reasonableness, the court noted the district court heard arguments from counsel and the defendant, weighed the Section thirty-five fifty-three factors, and selected a sentence at the bottom of the advisory range. The court held that Hicks merely disagreed with how the court balanced the factors and asked the appellate court to rebalance them, which is beyond the scope of appellate review.
Finding no error in this decision, we conclude that the sentencing calculation is procedurally reasonable.
United States v. Hicks, No. 25-1557 (6th Cir. May 22, 2026)
What it means going forward
The decision reinforces that appellate courts will not substitute their judgment for the district court’s weighing of sentencing factors when the sentence falls within the advisory Guidelines range.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download