United States v. Jones

Docket Number23-4217
Decision Date28 December 2023
PartiesUNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff -Appellee, v. RYAN JONES, Defendant-Appellant.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit

1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff -Appellee,
v.

RYAN JONES, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 23-4217

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

December 28, 2023


UNPUBLISHED

Submitted: November 21, 2023

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, Senior District Judge. (3:11-cr-00231-HEH-RCY-1)

ON BRIEF:

Geremy C. Kamens, Federal Public Defender, Frances H. Pratt, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Laura J. Koenig, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Office of the Federal Public Defender, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant.

Jessica D. Aber, United States Attorney, Richard D. Cooke, Assistant United States Attorney, Office of the United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before Wynn, Circuit Judge, and Motz and Floyd, Senior Circuit Judges.

Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

PER CURIAM.

Ryan Jones appeals the 240-month sentence imposed on resentencing following his guilty plea to attempted Hobbs Act robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a). On appeal, Jones asks us to vacate his sentence and remand for resentencing due to inconsistencies between several discretionary conditions of supervised release that the district court pronounced at sentencing and those contained in the written judgment. The Government concedes the conditions are inconsistent but argues that, for various reasons, a full resentencing is unnecessary.

"[W]e review the consistency of the defendant's oral sentence and the written judgment de novo." See United States v. Cisson, 33 F.4th 185, 193 (4th Cir. 2022) (cleaned up). A district court is required to orally pronounce at sentencing all discretionary conditions of supervised release. United States v. Rogers, 961 F.3d 291, 296 (4th Cir. 2020); see also United States v. Singletary, 984 F.3d 341, 345 (4th Cir. 2021). This requirement "is a critical part of the defendant's right to be present at sentencing," Rogers, 961 F.3d at 300 (internal quotation marks omitted), and ensures the defendant has an opportunity to challenge unwarranted conditions before they are imposed, id. at 298. An unexplained inconsistency between the orally pronounced and written versions of a discretionary supervised release condition can amount to Rogers error. See Cisson, 33 F.4th at 193-94.

The usual remedy for a Rogers error is to...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT