Court Opinion

ID: 9408849
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-13 21:00:34.379808+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:47.469878
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4118      Doc: 37         Filed: 07/12/2023     Pg: 1 of 4

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 22-4118

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        JOHN GLENN BARTLEY,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at
        Clarksburg. Thomas S. Kleeh, Chief District Judge. (1:15-cr-00018-TSK-MJA-1)

        Submitted: March 1, 2023                                          Decided: July 12, 2023

        Before NIEMEYER, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Brian J. Kornbrath, Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL
        PUBLIC DEFENDER, Clarksburg, West Virginia, for Appellant. Sarah Wagner, OFFICE
        OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Clarksburg, West Virginia, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4118       Doc: 37          Filed: 07/12/2023      Pg: 2 of 4

        PER CURIAM:

               John Glenn Bartley appeals the district court’s judgment revoking his term of

        supervised release and imposing a sentence of 9 months’ imprisonment and 27 months’

        supervised release. On appeal, Bartley’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.

        California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal

        but questioning whether there was sufficient evidence to support the court’s revocation

        decision. Bartley has filed several pro se supplemental briefs, in which he also questions

        the sufficiency of the evidence and, additionally, argues that one of the violations was

        unconstitutional. The Government has declined to file a response brief. For the reasons

        that follow, we affirm the district court’s judgment and remand for correction of a clerical

        error in that judgment.

               We review the district court’s revocation decision for abuse of discretion, its factual

        findings underlying the revocation for clear error, and its legal conclusions de novo. United

        States v. Patterson, 957 F.3d 426, 435 (4th Cir. 2020). A district court need only find a

        supervised release violation by a preponderance of the evidence. 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3).

        Based on our review of the record, we conclude that there was sufficient evidence adduced

        at the revocation hearing to support the finding that Bartley violated his supervision by

        failing to follow his probation officer’s instructions related to the conditions of his release,

        lying to the probation officer and failing to obtain mental health treatment, and contacting

        the victim of his underlying crimes. Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its

        discretion in revoking Bartley’s supervised release. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3); U.S.

        Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 7B1.3(a)(2) (2021) (“Upon a finding of a Grade C

                                                       2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4118      Doc: 37          Filed: 07/12/2023     Pg: 3 of 4

        violation [of supervised release], the court may . . . revoke probation or supervised

        release.”).

               Turning to the remaining claim in Bartley’s pro se brief, he asserts that the violation

        for failing to follow his probation officer’s instructions violated his First Amendment right

        to free speech. To the extent that Bartley seeks to challenge the district court’s imposition

        of the supervised release condition underlying the violation, his claim is not properly before

        this court. See United States v. Holman, 532 F.3d 284, 287 n.1 (4th Cir. 2008) (“[W]hen a

        condition of supervised release was imposed as part of the defendant’s original sentence,

        the condition [may] not be challenged in an appeal from an order revoking the defendant’s

        supervised release, but must instead be challenged on direct appeal from the original

        conviction and sentence.”).

               An “as-applied challenge” to a supervised release condition is cognizable in

        revocation proceedings; that is, a defendant may properly challenge the condition’s

        “application to a particular act by the probationer.” United States v. Van Donk, 961 F.3d

        314, 325-26 (4th Cir. 2020). However, to the extent that Bartley raises such a challenge,

        we conclude that his claim is without merit. Our review of the record reveals that the

        application of the supervised release condition requiring Bartley to follow the probation

        officer’s instructions was reasonably related to the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing goals

        and “involve[ed] no greater deprivation of liberty than [was] reasonably necessary” to

        achieve those goals. 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d). Accordingly, the district court’s determination

        that Bartley violated that condition did not impermissibly infringe upon his First

        Amendment rights. See Van Donk, 961 F.3d at 326 (“A condition of supervised release

                                                      3
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4118         Doc: 37       Filed: 07/12/2023      Pg: 4 of 4

        may restrict a probationer from engaging in what would otherwise be protected conduct,

        so long as the condition comports with 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d).”).

               In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have

        found no meritorious grounds for appeal. We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment.

        However, because the revocation judgment incorrectly stated that Bartley admitted guilt to

        the violations, we remand so that the district court may correct this clerical error. See Fed.

        R. Crim. P. 36. This court requires that counsel inform Bartley, in writing, of the right to

        petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Bartley requests that

        a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel

        may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must

        state that a copy thereof was served on Bartley.

               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 AND REMANDED

                                                      4