Court Opinion

ID: 9411502
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-26 21:00:47.452725+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:21:07.105060
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4376      Doc: 30         Filed: 07/25/2023    Pg: 1 of 5

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-4376

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        ROBERT BRADLEY LOCKHART,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at
        Harrisonburg. Michael F. Urbanski, Chief District Judge. (5:19-cr-00020-MFU-JCH-1)

        Submitted: July 12, 2023                                          Decided: July 25, 2023

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

        Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Dennis E. Jones, DENNIS E. JONES, PLC, Abingdon, Virginia, for
        Appellant. S. Cagle Juhan, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,
        Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4376      Doc: 30          Filed: 07/25/2023     Pg: 2 of 5

        PER CURIAM:

               A jury convicted Robert Bradley Lockhart of conspiracy to distribute and to possess

        with intent to distribute 100 grams or more of heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1),

        (b)(1)(B), 846, and possession with intent to distribute heroin resulting in serious bodily

        injury, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C). The district court sentenced

        Lockhart to 20 years’ imprisonment and he now appeals. On appeal, Lockhart’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 the district court should

        have granted Lockhart’s motion for judgment of acquittal under Fed. R. Crim. P. 29.

        Although informed of his right to do so, Lockhart has not filed a pro se supplemental brief.

        For the following reasons, we affirm Lockhart’s convictions, vacate his sentence, and

        remand for resentencing.

               “We review the denial of a motion for judgment of acquittal de novo.” United

        States v. Savage, 885 F.3d 212, 219 (4th Cir. 2018). In assessing the sufficiency of the

        evidence, we decide whether there is substantial evidence to support the convictions when

        viewed in the light most favorable to the government. Id. “Substantial evidence is

        evidence that a reasonable finder of fact could accept as adequate and sufficient to support

        a conclusion of a defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.”             United States v.

        Rodriguez-Soriano, 931 F.3d 281, 286 (4th Cir. 2019) (cleaned up). In making this

        determination, we do not resolve conflicts in the evidence or evaluate the credibility of

        witnesses. Savage, 885 F.3d at 219. “A defendant who brings a sufficiency challenge

                                                      2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4376      Doc: 30         Filed: 07/25/2023      Pg: 3 of 5

        bears a heavy burden, as appellate reversal on grounds of insufficient evidence is confined

        to cases where the prosecution’s failure is clear.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).

               In order to convict Lockhart of the drug conspiracy under § 846, the Government

        had to demonstrate: (1) an agreement between Lockhart and one or more persons to

        distribute and possess with intent to distribute heroin; (2) that Lockhart knew of the

        conspiracy; and (3) that Lockhart knowingly and voluntarily became a part of the

        conspiracy. United States v. Ath, 951 F.3d 179, 185 (4th Cir. 2020). The Government

        also had to demonstrate that Lockhart could have reasonably foreseen that the conspiracy

        would involve 100 grams or more of heroin. United States v. Brooks, 524 F.3d 549, 558

        (4th Cir. 2008). For a conviction under § 841(a) for possession with intent to distribute

        heroin resulting in serious bodily injury, the Government had to prove that Lockhart

        knowingly possessed heroin with the intent to distribute it and that serious bodily injury

        resulted from the use of that heroin. See United States v. Randall, 171 F.3d 195, 209 (4th

        Cir. 1999); see also United States v. Robinson, 55 F.4th 390, 401 (4th Cir. 2022). Serious

        bodily injury means bodily injury involving a substantial risk of death.          21 U.S.C.

        § 802(25).

               We have thoroughly reviewed the record and conclude that the district court did not

        err in denying Lockhart’s Rule 29 motion. The Government presented several witnesses

        who testified to Lockhart’s drug distribution and activities in the conspiracy, including the

        amount of heroin involved over the course of the conspiracy.           With respect to the

        substantive possession count, the Government demonstrated that Lockhart provided heroin

        to the victim, who used that heroin and suffered an overdose. The victim was revived on

                                                     3
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4376       Doc: 30         Filed: 07/25/2023      Pg: 4 of 5

        the side of the road by first responders and transported to the hospital for treatment. While

        the Government’s expert and witnesses who responded to the scene of the overdose opined

        that the victim faced a substantial risk of death from the overdose, Lockhart provided the

        testimony of an expert who disagreed regarding the severity of the overdose. Although

        this testimony was conflicting, “[c]redibility determinations are within the sole province of

        the jury and are not susceptible to judicial review.” Robinson, 55 F.4th at 404 (internal

        quotation marks omitted). The Government demonstrated sufficient evidence from which

        a reasonable jury could conclude that the victim was at a substantial risk of death, and the

        district court thus correctly denied Lockhart’s motion for a judgment of acquittal.

               With respect to the sentence, however, the criminal judgment lists 13 standard

        conditions of supervised release that the district court did not orally pronounce at the

        sentencing hearing or state that it was incorporating into the judgment, and the court did

        not explain its reasons for imposing these special conditions of supervised release. 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. In United States v.

        Singletary, we explained that “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.” 984 F.3d 341, 345 (4th Cir. 2021). In situations such as Lockhart’s, where the

        district court fails to announce or otherwise incorporate the discretionary conditions of

                                                      4
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4376         Doc: 30      Filed: 07/25/2023      Pg: 5 of 5

        supervised release, the appropriate remedy is to vacate the entire sentence and remand for

        a full resentencing hearing. See id. at 346 & n.4. We therefore do not address the

        procedural and substantive reasonableness of the sentence at this time. See id.

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

        found no other meritorious grounds for appeal. We thus affirm Lockhart’s convictions, but

        vacate the sentence and remand for resentencing. This court requires that counsel inform

        Lockhart, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for

        further review. If Lockhart 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

        Lockhart.

               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 IN PART,
                                                                                VACATED IN PART,
                                                                                 AND REMANDED

                                                     5