Court Opinion

ID: 9840708
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-19 21:00:51.215662+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:04:40.899613
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4188      Doc: 57         Filed: 09/18/2023     Pg: 1 of 5

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 22-4188

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        FRANK LOUIS OLIVER, III,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at
        Statesville. Kenneth D. Bell, District Judge. (5:20-cr-00107-KDB-DCK-1)

        Submitted: September 14, 2023                               Decided: September 18, 2023

        Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Joshua B. Howard, GAMMON HOWARD & ZESZOTARSKI, PLLC,
        Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Dena J. King, United States Attorney, Anthony J.
        Enright, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
        ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4188         Doc: 57         Filed: 09/18/2023     Pg: 2 of 5

        PER CURIAM:

                  Frank Louis Oliver, III, was convicted by a jury of two counts of distribution of 28

        grams or more of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B). The district

        court sentenced Oliver to 108 months’ imprisonment. On appeal, Oliver contends that his

        sentence is unreasonable because the district court failed to adequately address defense

        counsel’s sentencing arguments and failed to adequately explain the supervised release

        condition prohibiting Oliver from associating with known felons. Finding no error, we

        affirm.

                  We review a sentence for reasonableness, applying “a deferential abuse-of-

        discretion standard.” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007). When considering a

        challenge to the reasonableness of a sentence imposed by the district court, “we consider

        both substantive reasonableness, considering the totality of the circumstances, and

        procedural reasonableness, ensuring that the district court committed no significant

        procedural error, such as miscalculating the sentencing guidelines, failing to consider the

        [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) criminal and personal history factors, or selecting a sentence based

        on erroneous facts.” United States v. Zelaya, 908 F.3d 920, 930 (4th Cir. 2018) (internal

        quotation marks and brackets omitted). We review for procedural errors first and consider

        the substantive reasonableness of the sentence only if we find no procedural errors. See

        United States v. Bolton, 858 F.3d 905, 911 (4th Cir. 2017). A sentence must be “sufficient,

        but not greater than necessary,” to accomplish the § 3553(a) sentencing goals. 18 U.S.C.

        § 3553(a). A sentence within a properly calculated Guidelines range is presumptively

        substantively reasonable. United States v. Smith, 919 F.3d 825, 841 n.12 (4th Cir. 2019).

                                                       2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4188      Doc: 57         Filed: 09/18/2023     Pg: 3 of 5

        That presumption “can only be rebutted by showing that the sentence is unreasonable when

        measured against the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.” United States v. Gutierrez, 963 F.3d

        320, 344 (4th Cir. 2020) (internal quotation marks omitted).

               We conclude that Oliver’s sentence was procedurally reasonable, as the record

        demonstrates that the district court appropriately considered the sentencing factors and the

        brief arguments presented by defense counsel and adequately explained its reasons for

        imposing the chosen sentence. Specifically, the court noted its hope that the chosen

        sentence would “be a deterrent” and questioned Oliver about the kinds of vocational

        programs he wanted to participate in while incarcerated. However, the court found other

        factors such as Oliver’s personal characteristics and history more significant and focused

        on these factors during its sentencing explanation. Finding no procedural error, we turn to

        the substantive reasonableness of Oliver’s sentence and further conclude that Oliver has

        failed to rebut the presumption that his within-Guidelines sentence is reasonable. See id.

        We therefore conclude that Oliver’s sentence is both procedurally and substantively

        reasonable.

               Oliver also contends that the district court erred by not providing an adequate

        explanation for the condition of supervised release requiring him not to associate with

        known felons. To preserve a challenge to proposed conditions of supervised release,

        objections “must be made with sufficient specificity so as reasonably to alert the district

        court of the true ground for the objection.” United States v. Elbaz, 52 F.4th 593, 611

        (4th Cir. 2022) (internal quotation marks omitted), petition for cert. filed, No. 22-1055

        (U.S. May 1, 2023). Because Oliver did not object to the supervised release conditions,

                                                     3
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4188      Doc: 57         Filed: 09/18/2023      Pg: 4 of 5

        our review is for plain error. Id. at 612; United States v. McMiller, 954 F.3d 670, 675

        (4th Cir. 2020). “To establish plain error, [Oliver] must show that an error occurred, that

        it was plain, and that it affected his substantial rights.” McMiller, 954 F.3d at 674. Oliver

        also must show that the error “seriously affects the fairness, integrity or public reputation

        of judicial proceedings.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).

               The district court must explain any special condition of supervision.         United

        States v. Arbaugh, 951 F.3d 167, 178 (4th Cir. 2020). Although the court “need not

        robotically tick through an explanation for each supervised release condition,” it “must

        offer enough of an explanation to satisfy us that it considered the parties’ arguments and

        had a reasoned basis for exercising its own legal decision-making authority.” United

        States v. Sueiro, 59 F.4th 132, 143 (4th Cir. 2023) (cleaned up). The reasons for some

        special conditions of supervision may be “so self-evident and unassailable” that a

        particularized explanation may be unnecessary. Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).

               Accordingly, a district court must specifically explain the reasons for imposing a

        discretionary condition of supervised release unless (1) the reasons are “self-evident,”

        (2) the defendant raised no nonfrivolous objections to the condition, and (3) the court

        provided an adequate explanation for the sentence as a whole. United States v. Boyd, 5

        F.4th 550, 559 (4th Cir. 2021) (internal quotation marks omitted); see United States v.

        Aplicano-Oyuela, 792 F.3d 416, 425 (4th Cir. 2015) (“A court’s sentencing

        rationale[] . . . can support both imprisonment and supervised release.”). “[W]e have never

        required that a district court conduct two § 3553(a) analyses, one related to the term of

                                                     4
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4188      Doc: 57         Filed: 09/18/2023      Pg: 5 of 5

        imprisonment and a second related to the term of supervised release.” Id. (quoting United

        States v. Clark, 726 F.3d 496, 501 (3d Cir. 2013)).

               In announcing Oliver’s sentence, the district court provided a thorough explanation

        of the sentence as a whole, focusing particularly on Oliver’s extensive criminal history and

        personal characteristics. In view of the nature of the crime and Oliver’s history of

        recidivism, we conclude that the district court’s reasons for imposing the challenged

        supervised release condition are self-evident. Accordingly, we discern no plain error, see

        Boyd, 5 F.4th at 559; McMiller, 954 F.3d at 674, and we affirm this condition of supervised

        release.

               Accordingly, we affirm the criminal 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

                                                     5