Court Opinion

ID: 9953856
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-22 21:01:27.502206+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:10:05.040543
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-4067      Doc: 36         Filed: 03/21/2024    Pg: 1 of 5

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-4067

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        BRANDON DWIGHT MOSES,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
        Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Jr., District Judge. (1:22-cr-00121-WO-1)

        Submitted: February 20, 2024                                      Decided: March 21, 2024

        Before WILKINSON and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit
        Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, Lisa
        S. Costner, Assistant Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC
        DEFENDER, Winston-Salem, 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        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 23-4067        Doc: 36          Filed: 03/21/2024       Pg: 2 of 5

        PER CURIAM:

                  Brandon Dwight Moses pled guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to

        possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1),

        924(a)(2). The district court sentenced Moses to 27 months’ imprisonment followed by

        three years of supervised release. On appeal, Moses’ counsel initially filed a brief pursuant

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

        grounds for appeal but questioning the procedural and substantive reasonableness of

        Moses’ sentence. Although notified of his right to do so, Moses has not filed a pro se

        supplemental brief. After reviewing the record, we ordered supplemental briefing on the

        reasonableness of the special condition of supervised release requiring Moses to submit to

        home detention. Moses argues that the condition effectively constitutes an additional

        upward variance of Moses’ term of imprisonment, that the court failed to state that it

        imposed home detention as a substitute for imprisonment, and that the condition is

        unreasonable. The Government contends that the district court adequately explained why

        it imposed the home detention condition and that the condition is reasonable in light of

        Moses’ history of dangerous conduct and his resistance to court-directed mental health

        treatment. After reviewing the supplemental briefs, we affirm the district court’s judgment.

                  We review a criminal sentence for reasonableness “under a deferential abuse-of-

        discretion standard.” United States v. Williams, 5 F.4th 500, 505 (4th Cir. 2021). We must

        first confirm “that the district court committed no significant procedural error, such as

        failing    to   calculate   (or   improperly   calculating)    the   [Sentencing]   Guidelines

        range, . . . failing to consider the [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) factors, selecting a sentence based

                                                       2
USCA4 Appeal: 23-4067      Doc: 36         Filed: 03/21/2024     Pg: 3 of 5

        on clearly erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the chosen sentence.” Gall v.

        United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). “If the sentence is procedurally sound, we then

        consider the substantive reasonableness of the sentence, taking into account the totality of

        the circumstances.” United States v. McCain, 974 F.3d 506, 515 (4th Cir. 2020) (internal

        quotation marks omitted). “Where, as here, the sentence is outside the advisory Guidelines

        range, we must consider whether the sentencing court acted reasonably both with respect

        to its decision to impose such a sentence and with respect to the extent of the divergence

        from the sentencing range.” United States v. Nance, 957 F.3d 204, 215 (4th Cir. 2020)

        (internal quotation marks omitted). In reviewing an upward variance, this court “may

        consider the extent of the deviation, but must give due deference to the district court’s

        decision that the § 3553(a) factors, on a whole, justify the extent of the variance.” Id. at

        212 (internal quotation marks omitted).

               At sentencing, the district court accurately calculated Moses’ Guidelines range,

        provided Moses an opportunity to argue for an appropriate sentence, addressed Moses’ and

        the Government’s sentencing arguments, considered the § 3553(a) factors, and adequately

        explained the chosen sentence.     The court considered Moses’ mitigating arguments,

        including that Moses did not intend to use the firearm, that Moses had a history of medical

        and mental health challenges, and that Moses had a relatively positive employment record.

        But the court ultimately concluded that an upward variance was appropriate in light of the

        seriousness of the offense, Moses’ criminal history, and the need to provide deterrence and

        promote respect for the law. After reviewing the record, we conclude that the district court

        did not abuse its discretion by imposing the upward-variant sentence. See Nance, 957 F.3d

                                                     3
USCA4 Appeal: 23-4067      Doc: 36         Filed: 03/21/2024     Pg: 4 of 5

        at 215-17. And because “Congress generally views home confinement as part of a sentence

        of probation or supervised release, not as imprisonment,” we need not consider Moses’

        term of home detention when evaluating the reasonableness of Moses’ term of

        imprisonment. United States v. Hager, 288 F.3d 136, 138 (4th Cir. 2002), superseded in

        part by statute, Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools to End the Exploitation of

        Children Today Act of 2003, Pub. L. No. 108-21, 117 Stat. 650.

              Turning to the home detention condition, “[w]e ordinarily review conditions of

        supervised release for abuse of discretion.” United States v. Boyd, 5 F.4th 550, 554 (4th

        Cir. 2021). “District courts have broad latitude to impose discretionary conditions of

        supervised release.” Id. at 557 (internal quotation marks omitted). A district court may

        impose any discretionary condition so long as it “is reasonably related to the statutory

        sentencing factors referenced in 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d)(1).” United States v. Douglas, 850

        F.3d 660, 663 (4th Cir. 2017) (internal quotation marks omitted). The condition must

        “involve[] no greater deprivation of liberty than is reasonably necessary” to satisfy these

        factors and be “consistent with any pertinent policy statements issued by the Sentencing

        Commission.” 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d)(2), (3).

               A district court must explain why a discretionary condition is warranted under

        § 3583(d). Boyd, 5 F.4th at 557. However, “[t]he degree of explanation required—the

        appropriateness of brevity or length, conciseness or detail, when to write, what to

        say—varies with the complexity of a given case.” Id. (cleaned up). At bottom, “a

        sentencing court must always offer enough of an explanation to satisfy us that it has

                                                    4
USCA4 Appeal: 23-4067         Doc: 36      Filed: 03/21/2024      Pg: 5 of 5

        considered the parties’ arguments and has a reasoned basis for exercising its own legal

        decision-making authority.” Id. at 559 (cleaned up).

               Here, we conclude that the home detention condition is reasonable. Based on

        Moses’ resistance to the court’s direction that he participate in mental health and substance

        abuse treatment, the district court ordered that Moses be subject to one year of home

        detention upon his release from imprisonment. While the court did not expressly state that

        it imposed home detention as an alternative to imprisonment, the record reveals that the

        court imposed the term of home detention in lieu of a further upward variance.

        Additionally, the court explained that home detention was necessary to protect the public

        and provide Moses with appropriate correctional treatment. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(C),

        (D). We thus conclude that the home detention condition is reasonable.

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

        found no meritorious grounds for appeal. We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment.

        This court requires that counsel inform Moses, in writing, of the right to petition the

        Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Moses 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 Moses.

               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

                                                     5