Court Opinion

ID: 9941107
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-15 21:01:22.718025+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:46:13.466797
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4321      Doc: 36         Filed: 02/14/2024    Pg: 1 of 3

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-4321

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        ANTWAN MATTES WILLIAMS,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
        Greensboro. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:10-cr-00021-NCT-1)

        Submitted: September 29, 2023                                Decided: February 14, 2024

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

        Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: James B. Craven, III, Durham, North Carolina, for Appellant. Sandra J.
        Hairston, United States Attorney, Julie C. Niemeier, Assistant United States Attorney,
        OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for
        Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4321      Doc: 36         Filed: 02/14/2024     Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               Antwan Mattes Williams appeals the revocation of his supervised release and the

        district court’s imposition of a sentence of 24 months’ imprisonment plus 18 additional

        months of supervised release. Williams’ counsel 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 the district court imposed a plainly unreasonable revocation

        sentence. Upon reviewing the record, we ordered the parties to file supplemental briefs

        addressing whether the court’s announcement of the special conditions of supervised

        release presented a reversible error under United States v. Rogers, 961 F.3d 291

        (4th Cir. 2020), and United States v. Singletary, 984 F.3d 341 (4th Cir. 2021). Having

        reviewed the parties’ submissions, we vacate and remand for resentencing.

               In United States v. Rogers, we held that a district court must pronounce, either

        expressly or “through incorporation,” all discretionary conditions of supervised release at

        the sentencing hearing. 961 F.3d at 296-99. Discretionary conditions of supervised release

        that appear for the first time in a written judgment are nullities; a defendant has not been

        sentenced to these conditions, warranting vacatur and a remand for resentencing.

        Singletary, 984 F.3d at 344, 346 n.4 (citing Rogers, 961 F.3d at 295, 300-01). We review

        de novo the consistency of a defendant’s oral sentence with the written judgment. Rogers,

        961 F.3d at 296.

               At the revocation hearing, the district court orally announced a special condition of

        supervised release requiring Williams to submit to warrantless searches. The written

        description of this condition, which additionally requires Williams to warn residents that

                                                     2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4321      Doc: 36         Filed: 02/14/2024      Pg: 3 of 3

        he is subject to warrantless searches, is inconsistent with the court’s oral pronouncement.

        Further, this inconsistency constitutes reversible Rogers error. See United States v. Cisson,

        33 F.4th 185, 191 (4th Cir. 2022) (noting that “where the description of a condition in an

        oral sentence [does] not match the description of that condition in the written judgment,

        that error alone is reversible Rogers error,” at least where the Government offers no

        explanation for the discrepancy (internal quotation marks omitted)).

               Accordingly, we vacate Williams’ revocation sentence and remand for resentencing.

        In light of our holding, we do not address whether the district court imposed a plainly

        unreasonable sentence or whether the court adequately announced the remaining special

        conditions of supervised release. See Singletary, 984 F.3d at 346-47. 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.

                                                                     VACATED AND REMANDED

                                                     3