Court Opinion

ID: 9376532
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-02 22:00:56.813724+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:07.459790
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 21-4161      Doc: 61         Filed: 03/01/2023     Pg: 1 of 4

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 21-4161

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff – Appellee,

                      v.

        CODY ZACHARY LOCKLEAR,

                             Defendant – Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
        Wilmington. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (7:20-cr-00089-D-1)

        Submitted: January 20, 2023                                       Decided: March 1, 2023

        Before NIEMEYER and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and James K. BREDAR, Chief United
        States District Judge for the District of Maryland, sitting by designation.

        Affirmed in part and remanded in part with instructions by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: G. Alan DuBois, Federal Public Defender, Eric Joseph Brignac, Chief
        Appellate Attorney, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Raleigh, North
        Carolina, for Appellant. Michael F. Easley, United States Attorney, David A. Bragdon,
        Assistant United States Attorney, Kristine L. Fritz, 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        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 21-4161      Doc: 61          Filed: 03/01/2023     Pg: 2 of 4

        PER CURIAM:

               Cody Locklear pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute cocaine base

        and cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (Count One) and possession of a firearm

        in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (Count Two).

        The district court sentenced Locklear to a total of 144 months’ incarceration and two

        concurrent five-year terms of supervised release. During sentencing, the district court

        announced several special conditions of supervised release. Among those conditions

        announced at sentencing was that Locklear “support [his] children” during his term of

        supervised release.      The written judgment requires that Locklear “support his

        dependent(s)” during his term of supervised release.

               On appeal, Locklear’s counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386

        U.S. 738 (1967), concluding that counsel had not identified any meritorious grounds for

        appeal, but questioning whether Locklear’s sentence is substantively reasonable. Locklear

        was notified of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief but did not file one. The

        Government moved to dismiss the appeal. After reviewing the record pursuant to Anders,

        we identified a potentially meritorious issue, and accordingly directed the parties to provide

        supplemental briefing addressing whether there is 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). *

        *
          We also asked the parties to provide supplemental briefing regarding whether any portion
        of the appeal is barred by waiver. As the parties agree, the waiver in Locklear’s plea
        agreement was knowing and voluntary, it bars any claim that the sentence was
        substantively unreasonable, and it does not bar Locklear’s claim discussed below. The
        record reflects that Locklear’s waiver was knowing and voluntary, and it is therefore
        (Continued)
                                                      2
USCA4 Appeal: 21-4161      Doc: 61         Filed: 03/01/2023      Pg: 3 of 4

        See Rogers, 961 F.3d at 296 (holding that “all non-mandatory conditions of supervised

        release must be announced at a defendant’s sentencing hearing”).

               Locklear argues that he is entitled to a vacatur of his sentence and a remand for

        resentencing pursuant to Rogers because the condition of supervised release in his written

        judgment requiring him to “support his “dependent(s)” differs from the term as announced

        by the district court at sentencing that he “support [his] children.” He argues that the

        difference between the terms children and dependents is meaningful, as the latter could

        encompass a broader class of individuals. The Government argues that this Court should

        affirm the district court or, alternatively, should remand only for correction of the written

        judgment to conform with the district court’s oral pronouncement.

               This difference can be resolved without the need for a full resentencing, the remedy

        required under Rogers. See Rogers, 961 F.3d at 300–01 (vacating sentence and remanding

        to the district court for resentencing where district court failed to announce discretionary

        conditions of supervised release during sentencing). Rather, the remedy for a conflict of

        this nature is to remand to the district court “to correct the written judgment so that it

        conforms with the sentencing court’s oral pronouncements.” United States v. Morse, 344

        F.2d 27, 31 n.1 (4th Cir. 1965). “To the extent of any conflict between [the] written order

        enforceable. See United States v. Copeland, 707 F.3d 522, 528 (4th Cir. 2013). Further,
        Locklear agreed to waive “the right to appeal the conviction and whatever sentence is
        imposed on any ground[.]” This waiver encompasses Locklear’s initial challenge to the
        substantive reasonableness of his sentence. However, the waiver does not encompass
        Locklear’s potential Rogers claim. See Singletary, 984 F.3d at 345 (holding that an appeal
        waiver does not bar a Rogers claim).

                                                     3
USCA4 Appeal: 21-4161         Doc: 61      Filed: 03/01/2023      Pg: 4 of 4

        and the oral sentence, the latter is controlling.” Id. In such cases, the court “should carry

        out the true intention of the sentencing judge as this may be gathered from what he said at

        the time of sentencing.” Id. at 30. Here, the relevant condition of supervised release was

        announced at sentencing, but there was an incongruence between that condition as

        announced and as included in the written judgment. In the context of this record, which

        reflects no dependents other than Locklear’s children, the district court’s intention was

        clearly to require Locklear to support his children. We will therefore remand with

        instructions to conform the written judgment with the oral pronouncement.

               Accordingly, we deny the Government’s motion to dismiss, affirm Locklear’s

        sentence, and remand to the district court with instructions to correct the written judgment

        to conform with the district court’s oral pronouncement that Locklear “support [his]

        children[,]” leaving the sentence, including the remaining conditions of supervised release,

        undisturbed. 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 AND REMANDED IN PART WITH INSTRUCTIONS

                                                     4