Court Opinion

ID: 9368351
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-03 21:00:55.545298+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:07.208497
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 18-4801      Doc: 27         Filed: 02/02/2023     Pg: 1 of 4

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 18-4801

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        STEVEN WILLIAM NOWELL, a/k/a Shoota,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
        Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:18-cr-00015-D-1)

        Submitted: December 22, 2022                                      Decided: February 2, 2023

        Before KING and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Joseph L. Bell, Jr., BATTS, BATTS & BELL, LLP, Rocky Mount, North
        Carolina, for Appellant. David A. Bragdon, Assistant United States Attorney, Jennifer P.
        May-Parker, 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        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 18-4801      Doc: 27         Filed: 02/02/2023      Pg: 2 of 4

        PER CURIAM:

               Steven William Nowell pled guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to

        distributing and possessing with intent to distribute cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C.

        § 841(a)(1), and possession of a firearm as a felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).

        The district court sentenced Nowell within the Sentencing Guidelines range to 180 months’

        imprisonment followed by 3 years’ supervised release. On appeal, Nowell’s attorney has

        filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that there are

        no meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning whether the district court erred in

        classifying Nowell as a career offender and whether his sentence was substantively

        reasonable. Although informed of his right to do so, Nowell has not filed a pro se

        supplemental brief. The Government moved to dismiss Nowell’s appeal as barred by the

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

        dismiss, affirm Nowell’s convictions, vacate his sentence, and remand for resentencing. 1

               In imposing Nowell’s supervised release conditions, the district court failed to

        announce two discretionary conditions of supervised release that it ultimately included in

        the written judgment. The district court stated that Nowell would be expected to “comply

               1
                We previously held this case in abeyance pending our decision in No. 18-4831,
        United States v. Sitton, which we anticipated would provide further guidance on the impact
        of the Supreme Court’s intervening decision in Rehaif v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2191
        (2019), on Nowell’s guilty plea. We recently decided Sitton without addressing Rehaif.
        See United States v. Sitton, 21 F.4th 873 (4th Cir. 2022). Nevertheless, in light of Greer v.
        United States, 141 S. Ct. 2090, 2100 (2021), and United States v. Moody, 2 F.4th 180, 197-
        98 (4th Cir. 2021), our review of the record reveals no nonfrivolous Rehaif challenge to
        Nowell’s § 922(g) conviction.

                                                     2
USCA4 Appeal: 18-4801       Doc: 27         Filed: 02/02/2023      Pg: 3 of 4

        with the standard conditions” as well as certain “additional conditions” of supervised

        release. However, the district court did not announce two additional terms providing that

        Nowell “shall not incur new credit charges or open additional lines of credit without

        approval of the probation office” and that he “shall provide the probation office with access

        to any requested financial information.” 2

               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 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.” 984 F.3d 341,

        345 (4th Cir. 2021). In situations such as Nowell’s, where the district court fails to

        announce or otherwise incorporate the discretionary conditions of supervised release, the

        appropriate remedy is to vacate the entire sentence and remand for a full resentencing

               2
                 The Eastern District of North Carolina adopted a standing order specifying
        standard conditions of supervised release that included these two conditions. See In re
        Mandatory and Standard Conditions of Probation and Supervised Release, 20-SO-8
        (E.D.N.C.           June             25,          2020),           available         at
        http://www.nced.uscourts.gov/data/StandingOrders/20-SO-8.pdf. However, that order had
        not yet been adopted at the time of Nowell’s October 16, 2018, sentencing.

                                                      3
USCA4 Appeal: 18-4801         Doc: 27       Filed: 02/02/2023      Pg: 4 of 4

        hearing. See id. at 346 & n.4. Thus, we deny the Government’s motion to dismiss, and we

        vacate and remand for resentencing.

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

        found no other meritorious grounds for appeal. We affirm Nowell’s convictions, but we

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

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

        review. If Nowell 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 Nowell.

               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

                                                      4