Court Opinion

ID: 9396310
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-20 21:00:19.095909+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:16.033083
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 21-4409      Doc: 38         Filed: 05/19/2023     Pg: 1 of 5

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 21-4409

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        TROY LAMONT POWELL, a/k/a Gutter,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
        Greenville. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (4:18-cr-00073-D-1)

        Submitted: April 27, 2023                                         Decided: May 19, 2023

        Before AGEE and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Dismissed in part, affirmed in part, and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Sharon Leigh Smith, UNTI & SMITH, 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        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 21-4409      Doc: 38         Filed: 05/19/2023      Pg: 2 of 5

        PER CURIAM:

               Troy Lamont Powell pled guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to assault of

        a government official using a deadly weapon causing bodily injury, in violation of 18

        U.S.C. § 111(a)(1), (b), and possession of a prohibited object by an inmate, in violation of

        18 U.S.C. § 1791(a)(2), (b)(3). The district court sentenced Powell to 210 months’

        imprisonment and three years of supervised release. On appeal, Powell’s counsel has filed

        a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that there are no

        meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning whether the district court erred in imposing

        an offense level enhancement under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2A2.2(b)(1)

        (2018). Powell was notified of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief but has not done

        so. The Government has moved to dismiss Powell’s appeal as barred by the appeal waiver

        contained in his plea agreement. We dismiss in part, affirm in part, and remand with

        instructions.

               Before accepting a guilty plea, the district court must conduct a plea colloquy during

        which it must inform the defendant of, and determine that the defendant understands, the

        rights he is relinquishing by pleading guilty, the charges to which he is pleading, and the

        maximum and mandatory minimum penalties he faces. Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(1). The

        court also must ensure that the plea was voluntary and not the result of threats, force, or

        promises not contained in the plea agreement, Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(2), and that a factual

        basis supports the plea, Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(3). Because Powell did not seek to withdraw

        his guilty plea, we review the adequacy of the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 hearing for plain error.

        United States v. Williams, 811 F.3d 621, 622 (4th Cir. 2016). “Under the plain error

                                                     2
USCA4 Appeal: 21-4409       Doc: 38          Filed: 05/19/2023       Pg: 3 of 5

        standard, [we] will correct an unpreserved error if (1) an error was made; (2) the error is

        plain; (3) the error affects substantial rights; and (4) the error seriously affects the fairness,

        integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” United States v. Harris, 890 F.3d

        480, 491 (4th Cir. 2018) (internal quotation marks omitted). “In the Rule 11 context, this

        inquiry means that [the defendant] must demonstrate a reasonable probability that, but for

        the error, he would not have pleaded guilty.” United States v. Sanya, 774 F.3d 812, 816

        (4th Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks omitted). Here, the record reveals that the district

        court substantially complied with the Rule 11 requirements and that any errors or omissions

        did not affect Powell’s substantial rights. Further, we conclude that Powell entered his plea

        knowingly and voluntarily and that a factual basis supported the plea. Accordingly, we

        conclude that Powell’s guilty plea is valid.

               Turning to Powell’s appeal waiver, we review its validity de novo and “will enforce

        the waiver if it is valid and the issue appealed is within the scope of the waiver.” United

        States v. Adams, 814 F.3d 178, 182 (4th Cir. 2016). A waiver is valid if it is “knowing and

        voluntary.” Id. To determine whether a waiver is knowing and voluntary, “we consider

        the totality of the circumstances, including the experience and conduct of the defendant,

        his educational background, and his knowledge of the plea agreement and its terms.”

        United States v. McCoy, 895 F.3d 358, 362 (4th Cir. 2018) (internal quotation marks

        omitted). Generally, “if a district court questions a defendant regarding the waiver of

        appellate rights during the Rule 11 colloquy and the record indicates that the defendant

        understood the full significance of the waiver, the waiver is valid.” Id. (internal quotation

        marks omitted). Our review of the record confirms that Powell knowingly and voluntarily

                                                        3
USCA4 Appeal: 21-4409       Doc: 38         Filed: 05/19/2023      Pg: 4 of 5

        waived his right to appeal his convictions and sentence, with limited exceptions not

        applicable here. We therefore conclude that the waiver is valid and enforceable and that

        the sentencing issue raised by counsel falls squarely within the scope of the waiver.

               However, in imposing Powell’s supervised release conditions at sentencing, the

        district court ordered Powell to support his children, while the written judgment required

        Powell to support his dependents. A district court must announce all nonmandatory

        conditions of supervised release at the sentencing hearing. United States v. Rogers, 961

        F.3d 291, 296-99 (4th Cir. 2020). This “requirement . . . gives defendants a chance to

        object to conditions that are not tailored to their individual circumstances and ensures that

        they will be imposed only after consideration of the factors set out in [18 U.S.C.]

        § 3583(d).” Id. at 300. A defendant’s challenge to discretionary supervised release

        conditions that were not orally pronounced at sentencing falls outside the scope of an

        appeal waiver because “the heart of a Rogers claim is that discretionary conditions

        appearing for the first time in a written judgment . . . have not been ‘imposed’ on the

        defendant.” United States v. Singletary, 984 F.3d 341, 345 (4th Cir. 2021).

               An inconsistency between the descriptions of a condition of supervision announced

        at sentencing and in the written judgment may be reversible Rogers error where the

        government fails to explain the alleged inconsistency. See United States v. Cisson, 33 F.4th

        185, 193-94 (4th Cir. 2022); see also United States v. Jenkins, No. 21-4003, 2022 WL

        112069, at *2 (4th Cir. Jan. 12, 2022). However, in the context of this record, which

        reflects no dependents other than Powell’s children, it is clear the district court’s intention

        was to require Powell to support his children. “The proper remedy is for the [d]istrict

                                                      4
USCA4 Appeal: 21-4409         Doc: 38       Filed: 05/19/2023     Pg: 5 of 5

        [c]ourt to correct the written judgment so that it conforms with the sentencing court’s oral

        pronouncements.” United States v. Morse, 344 F.2d 27, 29 n.1 (4th Cir. 1965).

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

        found no meritorious grounds for appeal. We therefore grant the Government’s motion to

        dismiss in part, affirm in part, and remand to the district court with instructions to correct

        the written judgment to conform with the district court’s oral pronouncement that Powell

        support his children, leaving the sentence, including the remaining conditions of supervised

        release, undisturbed. This court requires that counsel inform Powell, in writing, of the right

        to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Powell 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 Powell.

               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.

                                                                               DISMISSED IN PART,
                                                                               AFFIRMED IN PART,
                                                                                  AND REMANDED

                                                      5