Court Opinion

ID: 9381114
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-21 21:00:55.605431+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:30.019384
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 21-4689      Doc: 33         Filed: 03/20/2023    Pg: 1 of 5

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 21-4689

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        RICARDO CARTER, II,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt.
        Peter J. Messitte, Senior District Judge. (8:19-cr-00121-PJM-1)

        Submitted: March 16, 2023                                         Decided: March 20, 2023

        Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Stephen J. van Stempvoort, MILLER JOHNSON, Grand Rapids, Michigan,
        for Appellant. Kelly O. Hayes, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,
        Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 21-4689      Doc: 33         Filed: 03/20/2023     Pg: 2 of 5

        PER CURIAM:

               Ricardo Carter, II, pled guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to bank fraud,

        in violation 18 U.S.C. § 1344, and aggravated identity theft, in violation of 18 U.S.C.

        § 1028A(a)(1). The district court sentenced Carter to 87 months’ imprisonment and a

        five-year term of supervised release. On appeal, Carter’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 the validity of Carter’s guilty plea based on ineffective

        assistance of counsel, the procedural and substantive reasonableness of Carter’s sentence,

        the court’s application of an enhancement for obstruction of justice, and whether the court

        erred in ordering both forfeiture and restitution. In a pro se supplemental brief, Carter

        reasserts three of these claims. The Government has moved to dismiss the appeal pursuant

        to the appeal waiver contained in Carter’s plea agreement. We deny the Government’s

        motion to dismiss, affirm Carter’s convictions, vacate his sentence and remand for

        resentencing.

               We review the validity of an appellate waiver 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). Upon review of the record, including the plea

        agreement and transcript of the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 hearing, we conclude that Carter’s

        appeal waiver is valid and enforceable. The waiver provision, however, does not preclude

        our review of the validity of the guilty plea. See United States v. McCoy, 895 F.3d 358,

        364 (4th Cir. 2018).

                                                     2
USCA4 Appeal: 21-4689      Doc: 33          Filed: 03/20/2023     Pg: 3 of 5

               Because Carter did not seek to withdraw his guilty plea, we review the adequacy of

        the Rule 11 hearing for plain error. United States v. Williams, 811 F.3d 621, 622 (4th Cir.

        2016); see United States v. Harris, 890 F.3d 480, 491 (4th Cir. 2018) (discussing plain

        error standard). Our review of the record leads us to conclude that Carter entered his guilty

        plea knowingly and voluntarily and that a factual basis supported the plea. See United

        States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 116, 119-20 (4th Cir. 1991).             Although Carter’s

        ineffective assistance claim relating to his guilty plea falls outside the scope of the appeal

        waiver, “we will reverse only if it conclusively appears in the trial record itself that the

        defendant was not provided effective representation.” United States v. Freeman, 24 F.4th

        320, 326 (4th Cir. 2022) (en banc) (cleaned up). Because the present record does not

        conclusively show that trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance, Carter’s claim is not

        cognizable on direct appeal and “should be raised, if at all, in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion.”

        United States v. Faulls, 821 F.3d 502, 508 (4th Cir. 2016). Accordingly, we affirm Carter’s

        convictions.

               However, in accordance with Anders, we have found a meritorious issue that falls

        outside the scope of Carter’s appeal waiver and requires us to vacate his sentence and

        remand for resentencing. Specifically, one of the non-mandatory conditions of supervised

        release included in the written criminal judgment was not orally pronounced at sentencing.

               We review de novo whether the sentence imposed in the written judgment is

        consistent with the district court’s oral pronouncement of the sentence. United States v.

        Rogers, 961 F.3d 291, 296 (4th Cir. 2020). While a district court need not orally pronounce

        all mandatory conditions at the sentencing hearing, “all non-mandatory conditions of

                                                      3
USCA4 Appeal: 21-4689      Doc: 33         Filed: 03/20/2023      Pg: 4 of 5

        supervised release must be announced at a defendant’s sentencing hearing,” either by

        separately announcing each discretionary condition or by “expressly incorporating a

        written list of proposed conditions.” Id. at 296, 299.

               In pronouncing the terms of Carter’s supervised release at sentencing, the district

        court did not orally impose the special condition of supervised release requiring Carter “to

        provide the probation officer with access to any requested financial information and

        authorize the release of any financial information.” In United States v. Singletary, 984 F.3d

        341 (4th Cir. 2021), we explained that a challenge to discretionary supervised release terms

        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.” Id. at 345

        (emphasis omitted).    Where, as here, the court failed to announce a non-mandatory

        condition of supervised release that is later included in the written judgment, the remedy is

        to vacate the sentence and remand for a full resentencing hearing. * Id. at 346 & n.4.

               In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in its entirety, and we have

        found no other meritorious issues for appeal outside the scope of the waiver. Accordingly,

        we deny the Government’s motion to dismiss the appeal, affirm Carter’s convictions,

        vacate his sentence, and remand for resentencing.

               *
                 Because we vacate Carter’s sentence, we do not consider any other issues related
        to the sentence, including Carter’s challenges to the restitution and forfeiture ordered. See
        Singletary, 984 F.3d at 346-47 (declining to consider additional challenges to original
        sentence).

                                                     4
USCA4 Appeal: 21-4689         Doc: 33    Filed: 03/20/2023   Pg: 5 of 5

              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