Court Opinion

ID: 9892786
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-24 21:00:39.230145+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:42:16.123768
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 21-4697      Doc: 33         Filed: 10/23/2023     Pg: 1 of 4

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 21-4697

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        ROBERT THOMAS MOON,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
        Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:04-cr-00380-BO-1)

        Submitted: January 13, 2023                                   Decided: October 23, 2023

        Before HARRIS and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: G. Alan DuBois, Federal Public Defender, Andrew DeSimone, Assistant
        Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Raleigh,
        North Carolina, for Appellant. Kenneth A. Polite, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Lisa H.
        Miller, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Finnuala K. Tessier, Appellate Section,
        Criminal Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C.;
        Michael F. Easley, Jr., United States Attorney, David Bragdon, Appellate Chief, OFFICE
        OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 21-4697       Doc: 33        Filed: 10/23/2023     Pg: 2 of 4

        PER CURIAM:

                In June 2005, Robert Moon pleaded guilty to possessing a firearm while a felon, in

        violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(e)(2)(B). After serving his prison sentence,

        Moon began his five-year term of supervised release. While on supervised release, Moon

        communicated threats to kill C.H. and his children. The probation office filed a petition to

        revoke Moon’s supervised release and the district court issued an arrest warrant. While

        Deputy United States Marshals were executing the warrant, Moon threatened to assault the

        arresting Deputy Marshals and his probation officers. The probation office amended its

        revocation petition to allege that Moon (1) communicated threats to his federal and state

        probation officers and the Deputy United States Marshals who arrested him,

        (2) communicated threats to C.H., and (3) was $550.00 in arrears on payment of his court

        fine.

                The district court held a two-day revocation hearing during which Moon admitted

        the violations. The court revoked Moon’s supervised release and imposed a statutory

        maximum sentence of 60 months in prison. After imposing the incarceration sentence, the

        judge asked the probation officer whether an additional supervised release term was

        permitted. When the probation officer affirmed that it was and neither party objected, the

        district court imposed a 60-month term of supervised release to follow the term of

        incarceration. Moon appealed.

                Eleven days later, the government moved to amend the judgment pursuant to

        Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35(a), noting that the district court, having imposed a

        60-month revocation sentence, did not have authority to impose an additional term of

                                                     2
USCA4 Appeal: 21-4697       Doc: 33         Filed: 10/23/2023      Pg: 3 of 4

        supervised release. Moon opposed the motion, arguing the issue was inappropriate for

        resolution via Rule 35(a). The next day, the district court entered an order concluding that

        imposition of the supervised release term on top of the maximum incarceration term was

        clear error and correcting Moon’s sentence by removing the term of supervised release.

        Moon appealed the amended order.

               On appeal, Moon first contends that the district court did not have the authority to

        correct his sentence under Rule 35(a). Rule 35(a) allows a sentencing court to “correct a

        sentence that resulted from arithmetical, technical, or other clear error” within 14 days after

        sentencing. Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(a). Rule 35(a) “extend[s] only to those cases in which an

        obvious error or mistake has occurred in the sentence, that is, errors which would almost

        certainly result in a remand of the case to the trial court.” United States v. Fraley, 988 F.2d

        4, 7 (4th Cir. 1993) (internal quotation marks omitted). There is no doubt that the sentence

        originally imposed here was clear error. The district court had authority to correct that

        error under Rule 35(a).

               Next, Moon challenges the procedural reasonableness of his revocation sentence.

        “A revocation sentence is procedurally reasonable if the district court adequately explains

        the chosen sentence after considering the Chapter Seven policy statement range,” the

        “applicable [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) sentencing factors,” and “any potentially meritorious

        arguments raised by the parties.” United States v. Patterson, 957 F.3d 426, 436–437 (4th

        Cir. 2020) (internal quotation marks omitted). We have reviewed the record and are

        satisfied that there is no reversible error.       The district court considered Moon’s

        nonfrivolous arguments, based its sentence on permissible considerations, and did not rely

                                                      3
USCA4 Appeal: 21-4697      Doc: 33       Filed: 10/23/2023     Pg: 4 of 4

        on clearly erroneous facts. Even assuming the district court erred in determining the

        violation grade, which we do not decide, any error was harmless in view of the district

        court’s explanation that it would impose the same reasonable sentence regardless of the

        advisory sentencing range. Accordingly, we affirm Moon’s revocation sentence.

               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

                                                   4