UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-4453

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JAY BERNARD RIVERS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Richmond. John A. Gibney, Jr., Senior District Judge. (3:15-cr-00164-JAG-1)

Submitted: July 28, 2022 Decided: August 29, 2022

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, KING, Circuit Judge, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Sicilia C. Englert, LAW OFFICE OF SICILIA C. ENGLERT, LLC, 

Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant. Jessica D. Aber, United States Attorney, Joseph 

Attias, Assistant United States Attorney, Michael C. Moore, Assistant United States

Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 21-4453 Doc: 26 Filed: 08/29/2022 Pg: 1 of 5
2

PER CURIAM:

Jay Bernard Rivers appeals his 87-month sentence1 and $84,918.47 restitution order 

imposed after resentencing on his convictions, following a jury trial, for mail theft, 

aggravated identity theft, bank fraud, and conspiracy to commit bank fraud, in violation of 

18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 1708, 1028A(a)(1), 1344, 1349.

2

 On appeal, Rivers challenges the 

sufficiency of the factual findings supporting both the intended loss amount used to 

calculate his Sentencing Guidelines range and the actual loss amount ordered as restitution. 

The Government argues that Rivers waived his appellate arguments because defense 

counsel affirmatively disclaimed any objections at sentencing or, alternatively, that Rivers 

at the very least failed to preserve the arguments for appellate review. For the reasons that 

follow, we affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand.

Generally, in reviewing a challenge to the district court’s Sentencing Guidelines 

calculation, we review the district court’s legal conclusions de novo and its factual findings 

for clear error. United States v. Allen, 909 F.3d 671, 677 (4th Cir. 2018). However, “when 

a party does not preserve an argument in the district court, we review only for plain error.” 

United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 577 (4th Cir. 2010); see United States v. Duroseau, 

26 F.4th 674, 678 n.2 (4th Cir. 2022) (defining “forfeiture” as “the failure to make the 

timely assertion of a right” and explaining that we “may review a forfeited claim for plain 

1 During the pendency of this appeal, Rivers was released from prison. In light of 

Rivers’ three-year term of supervised release, this appeal is not moot. See United States v. 

Ketter, 908 F.3d 61, 65-66 (4th Cir. 2018).

2 The district court vacated Rivers’ original sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.

USCA4 Appeal: 21-4453 Doc: 26 Filed: 08/29/2022 Pg: 2 of 5
3

error”). And when a party affirmatively waives an issue—by, for example, acknowledging 

the issue but “explicitly withdraw[ing] it”—“it is not reviewable on appeal, even for plain 

error.” United States v. Robinson, 744 F.3d 293, 298 (4th Cir. 2014).

In anticipation of Rivers’ resentencing, the probation officer drafted a revised 

presentence report (PSR), which did not change in any material way from the original PSR. 

Rivers did not file any objections, and he conceded the applicable Guidelines range would 

be 51 to 63 months’ imprisonment, to be followed by a mandatory 2-year sentence, to run 

consecutively. He also acknowledged that he would be required to pay the identified 

amount of restitution. At the resentencing hearing, although defense counsel3 reaffirmed 

that he did not have any objections to the PSR, he relayed to the district court that Rivers 

“[did] object . . . to the amount of loss. It is attributed $84,000 actual loss . . . And there 

[was] some intended loss as well.” (J.A. 150).4

 Counsel did not put forth any grounds for 

the objection, and he affirmatively distanced himself from Rivers’ objection, noting that 

he raised it at his client’s behest but that he had not identified any issue in the loss 

calculation.

To extent that this assertion was sufficient to avoid a total waiver of the arguments 

Rivers seeks to raise on appeal, we find that Rivers nevertheless forfeited his challenges to 

the factual findings supporting the loss amounts used in calculating his Guidelines range 

and restitution. “The entire purpose of an objection is to alert the district court to the actual 

3 Rivers is represented by different counsel on appeal.

4 “J.A.” refers to the joint appendix filed by the parties in this appeal.

USCA4 Appeal: 21-4453 Doc: 26 Filed: 08/29/2022 Pg: 3 of 5
4

basis of the asserted error” in order to enable the court “to correct possible error in short 

order and without the need for an appeal.” United States v. Bennett, 698 F.3d 194, 199 

(4th Cir. 2012). Accordingly, to preserve an issue for appeal, the appealing party must 

“alert the district court to the specific reason” for the objection. Id. “[V]ariations on 

arguments made below may be pursued” on appeal only if “the appealing party asked both 

courts to evaluate the same fundamental question.” United States v. Boyd, 5 F.4th 550, 556 

(4th Cir. 2021) (internal quotation marks omitted). Because Rivers did not present the 

district court with the grounds he now raises on appeal, our review is for plain error. To 

establish plain error, Rivers must show (1) error, (2) that “is clear and obvious,” and 

(3) that “affected his substantial rights.” United States v. Fowler, 948 F.3d 663, 669 (4th 

Cir. 2020). If the defendant makes this showing, we may correct the error only if it 

“seriously affects the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Id.

(cleaned up).

Pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(i)(3)(A), a sentencing court “may accept any 

undisputed portion of the [PSR] as a finding of fact.” And even if a defendant objects to a 

finding in the PSR, absent “an affirmative showing the information is inaccurate, the court 

is free to adopt the findings of the [PSR] without more specific inquiry or explanation.” 

United States v. Love, 134 F.3d 595, 606 (4th Cir. 1998) (cleaned up). In light of Rivers’ 

failure to lodge any specific objection to the loss amounts attributable to him and his related 

failure to affirmatively show that the numbers in the PSR were inaccurate, there is no error, 

let alone plain error, in the district court’s reliance on the PSR.

USCA4 Appeal: 21-4453 Doc: 26 Filed: 08/29/2022 Pg: 4 of 5
5

Finally, the Government requests that this court remand the case for the limited 

purpose of determining a payment schedule that accounts for Rivers’ financial condition, 

pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3664(f)(2). In fashioning a payment schedule for a restitution 

judgment, a district court “must make a factual finding keying the statutory factors [listed

in § 3664(f)(2)] to the type and manner of restitution ordered.” United States v. Dawkins, 

202 F.3d 711, 716 (4th Cir. 2000). The district court may satisfy this requirement by 

adopting the proposed findings contained within the PSR. Id.

Although the district court adopted the proposed findings set forth in the PSR in this 

case, as the Government emphasizes on appeal, there is some ambiguity in the record 

concerning whether the court’s order that restitution be paid in full immediately adequately 

accounted for Rivers’ financial situation. We note that the district court was authorized to 

order payment of restitution due immediately. See 18 U.S.C. § 3664(f)(3)(A)-(B). 

However, in light of the difference between the original payment schedule and the payment 

schedule imposed at resentencing, we vacate this portion of the judgment and remand so 

the court may make factual findings regarding Rivers’ current financial assets and fashion 

an appropriate payment schedule.

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 IN PART,

VACATED IN PART,

AND REMANDED

USCA4 Appeal: 21-4453 Doc: 26 Filed: 08/29/2022 Pg: 5 of 5