Court Opinion

ID: 9947001
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-01 21:00:56.381552+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:25:44.865848
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-4086      Doc: 35         Filed: 02/29/2024     Pg: 1 of 3

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 23-4086

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        JUSTIN KYLE TRIPP,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
        Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:21-cr-00296-BO-1)

        Submitted: February 27, 2024                                  Decided: February 29, 2024

        Before WILKINSON, WYNN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: G. Wells Dickson, Jr., WELLS DICKSON, PA, Kingstree, South Carolina,
        for Appellant. Michael F. Easley, Jr., United States Attorney, David A. Bragdon, Assistant
        United States Attorney, John L. Gibbons, 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        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 23-4086      Doc: 35         Filed: 02/29/2024     Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               Justin Kyle Tripp appeals from his three-year term of supervised release imposed

        pursuant to his guilty plea to distribution of heroin and fentanyl, and set to run following

        his 160-month prison sentence.      On appeal, Tripp asserts that certain conditions of

        supervised release were not adequately orally pronounced during his sentencing hearing,

        as required by United States v. Rogers, 961 F.3d 291 (4th Cir. 2020). We affirm. *

               “[A] district court may satisfy its obligation to orally pronounce discretionary

        conditions through incorporation—by incorporating, for instance, all Guidelines ‘standard’

        conditions when it pronounces a supervised-release sentence, and then detailing those

        conditions in the written judgment.” Id. at 299. Here, the district court announced at

        Tripp's sentencing that it was imposing “the standard conditions of supervision in this

        district.” (J.A. 111). Tripp argues that the court did not specify whether it was referring

        to the standard conditions that are listed in U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 5D1.3(c)

        or the standard conditions included in the Eastern District of North Carolina’s standing

        order. However, by announcing that the standard conditions “in this district” would govern

        Tripp's supervised release, the district court sufficiently incorporated by reference the

        standard conditions outlined in the standing order. See United States v. Elbaz, 52 F.4th

        593, 612 (4th Cir. 2022) (finding that district court’s generic reference to standard

        conditions should be given “the most obvious meaning in context”), cert. denied, 144 S.

               *
                The Government alternatively argues that Tripp explicitly waived this claim in his
        plea agreement. We assume, without deciding, that Tripp’s claim is properly before us.

                                                     2
USCA4 Appeal: 23-4086      Doc: 35         Filed: 02/29/2024      Pg: 3 of 3

        Ct. 278 (2023). Moreover, the standard conditions in the Guidelines and in the standing

        order are functionally identical. Tripp does not argue otherwise, and he does not assert that

        the court could have been referring to any other standard conditions.

               Accordingly, we affirm the district court's judgment. 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

                                                     3