Court Opinion

ID: 9899541
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-16 21:00:56.538238+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:20:38.137655
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4623      Doc: 20         Filed: 11/15/2023     Pg: 1 of 3

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 22-4623

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        HIA-KEEM DON’AE RICE,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
        Greenville. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (4:20-cr-00041-FL-1)

        Submitted: September 29, 2023                                Decided: November 15, 2023

        Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: G. Alan Dubois, Federal Public Defender, Jennifer C. Leisten, Assistant
        Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Raleigh,
        North Carolina, for Appellant. David A. Bragdon, Assistant United States Attorney,
        OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4623      Doc: 20           Filed: 11/15/2023    Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               Hia-Keem Don’ae Rice pleaded guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to

        knowingly possessing a firearm having been previously convicted of a felony, in violation

        of 18 U.S.C §§ 922(g)(1), 924.         The district court sentenced Rice to 110 months’

        imprisonment and a three-year term of supervised release. On appeal, Rice asserts that the

        district court erred by not announcing at sentencing all of the standard conditions of

        supervised release that were imposed in his criminal judgment. We have reviewed the

        record and find no reversible error.

               “[A] district court must orally pronounce all non-mandatory conditions of

        supervised release at the sentencing hearing.” United States v. Singletary, 984 F.3d 341,

        344 (4th Cir. 2021). “Discretionary conditions that appear for the first time in a subsequent

        written judgment . . . are nullities; the defendant has not been sentenced to those

        conditions, and a remand for resentencing is required.” Id. (citing United States v. Rogers,

        961 F.3d 291, 300-01 (4th Cir. 2020)). To “satisfy its obligation to orally pronounce

        discretionary conditions,” a district court may do so “through incorporation—by

        incorporating, for instance, all [Sentencing] Guidelines ‘standard’ conditions when it

        pronounces a supervised-release sentence, and then detailing those conditions in the written

        judgment.” Rogers, 961 F.3d at 299. “We review the consistency of [a defendant’s] oral

        sentence and the written judgment de novo.” Id. at 296; see United States v. Cisson, 33

        F.4th 185, 192-93 (4th Cir. 2022).

               The written plea agreement contained a provision that Rice would abide by the

        standard conditions of supervised release as adopted in the Eastern District of North

                                                      2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4623      Doc: 20         Filed: 11/15/2023     Pg: 3 of 3

        Carolina in Standing Order 21-5. ∗ At the sentencing hearing, the district court explained

        that all of the standard conditions of supervised release were appropriate in this case and

        that Rice was required to abide by them. Thus, we conclude that the court incorporated by

        reference the standard conditions of supervised release, and there was no ambiguity about

        which standard conditions the district court was imposing. See Cisson, 33 F.4th at 194.

               Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. 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

               ∗
                The Eastern District of North Carolina has a standing order listing the 13 standard
        conditions of supervised release, which are the same as the conditions listed in U.S.
        Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 5D1.3 (2021). 21-SO-5 (E.D.N.C. May 6, 2021),
        available at http://www.nced.uscourts.gov/data/StandingOrders/21-SO-5.pdf (last
        accessed Sept. 27, 2023).

                                                    3