Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 20 views

    United States v. Andre Brown, 4th Cir. (2015)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1) Andre Quinn Brown appealed his sentence for possession of a firearm by a felon, specifically challenging a condition of his supervised release prohibiting gang-related attire. 2) The appellate court reviewed this claim for plain error since Brown did not object to this condition at sentencing. 3) The court determined that while the district court did not provide extensive explanation for the condition, solely relying on explanations in the presentence report was not a plainly erroneous approach. Therefore, Brown's appeal did not establish reversible plain error.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    United States v. Andre Brown, 4th Cir. (2015)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    20 views6 pages
    1) Andre Quinn Brown appealed his sentence for possession of a firearm by a felon, specifically challenging a condition of his supervised release prohibiting gang-related attire. 2) The appellate court reviewed this claim for plain error since Brown did not object to this condition at sentencing. 3) The court determined that while the district court did not provide extensive explanation for the condition, solely relying on explanations in the presentence report was not a plainly erroneous approach. Therefore, Brown's appeal did not establish reversible plain error.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2015-05-21 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 14-4425

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Andre Quinn Brown appealed his sentence for possession of a firearm by a felon, specifically challenging a condition of his supervised release prohibiting gang-related attire. 2) The appellate court reviewed this claim for plain error since Brown did not object to this condition at sentencing. 3) The court determined that while the district court did not provide extensive explanation for the condition, solely relying on explanations in the presentence report was not a plainly erroneous approach. Therefore, Brown's appeal did not establish reversible plain error.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    20 views6 pages

    United States v. Andre Brown, 4th Cir. (2015)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1) Andre Quinn Brown appealed his sentence for possession of a firearm by a felon, specifically challenging a condition of his supervised release prohibiting gang-related attire. 2) The appellate court reviewed this claim for plain error since Brown did not object to this condition at sentencing. 3) The court determined that while the district court did not provide extensive explanation for the condition, solely relying on explanations in the presentence report was not a plainly erroneous approach. Therefore, Brown's appeal did not establish reversible plain error.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    of 6

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 14-4425

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    ANDRE QUINN BROWN,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
    District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles,
    District Judge. (1:13-cr-00365-CCE-1)

    Submitted:

    February 27, 2015

    Before DIAZ and


    Circuit Judge.

    HARRIS,

    Circuit

    Decided:

    Judges,

    and

    May 21, 2015

    DAVIS,

    Senior

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Paul Camarena, NORTH & SEDGWICK, LLC, Chicago, Illinois, for


    Appellant.
    Ripley Rand, United States Attorney, Robert A.J.
    Lang, Assistant United States Attorney, Winston-Salem, North
    Carolina, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Andre Quinn Brown appeals the sentence imposed after he
    pleaded

    guilty,

    pursuant

    to

    written

    plea

    agreement,

    to

    possession of a firearm by a felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C.


    922(g),

    924(e)

    (2012).

    The

    presentence

    report

    (PSR)

    recounted Browns involvement with a particular criminal street


    gang, and recommended as a special condition of his supervised
    release

    that

    Brown

    not

    wear,

    display,

    use

    or

    possess

    any

    clothing or accessories which have any gang or security threat


    group significance.

    (J.A. 58).

    At his sentencing hearing, Brown confirmed that he had no


    objections to the PSR.

    Brown explained that his connection with

    the United Blood Nation gang had been the primary cause of his
    past criminal activity, as well as the instant offense, and that
    he had ended his association with the gang.

    After the district

    court recited other supervised release conditions, the probation


    officer reminded the court of the PSRs recommended condition
    concerning gang-related attire.

    The court responded, I did

    overlook it. . . . Not associate with any gang members. . . .


    That doesnt sound like its going to be a problem.
    Following
    recommendations,

    this
    and

    exchange,
    neither

    party

    both

    parties

    mentioned

    the

    (J.A. 29).
    made

    other

    gang-related

    supervised release condition that the court had imposed.

    Nearly

    three weeks after the sentencing hearing, the court entered its
    2

    judgment,

    which

    included--verbatim

    from

    the

    PSR--the

    special

    condition of supervised release regarding gang-related attire.


    On appeal, Brown challenges only this condition.

    We affirm.

    District courts have broad latitude to impose conditions


    on supervised release . . . .
    F.3d

    404,

    omitted).
    reasonably

    407

    (4th

    Cir.

    United States v. Worley, 685

    2012)

    (internal

    quotation

    marks

    A sentencing court may impose any condition that is


    related

    to

    the

    sentencing factors . . . .

    relevant

    [18

    U.S.C.

    685 F.3d at 407.

    3553(a)]

    These include

    the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and
    characteristics of the defendant, providing adequate deterrence,
    protecting the public from further crimes, and providing the
    defendant

    with

    training,

    medical

    care,

    or

    treatment.

    Id.

    (internal quotation marks, alteration, and citations omitted).


    The condition also must involve[] no greater deprivation of
    liberty

    than

    is

    reasonably

    enumerated in 3553(a).

    necessary

    to

    achieve

    the

    goals

    United States v. Armel, 585 F.3d 182,

    186 (4th Cir. 2009) (quoting 18 U.S.C. 3583(d)(2) (2012)).


    The [district] court, at the time of sentencing, shall
    state

    in

    open

    court . . .

    conditions it imposes.

    the

    rationale

    for

    an

    review.

    Id.

    explanation

    special

    Id. (internal citation and ellipsis

    omitted) (quoting 18 U.S.C. 3553(c) (2012)).


    requiring

    the

    is

    to

    Nevertheless,

    permit

    the
    3

    The purpose of

    meaningful

    courts

    reasons

    appellate
    need

    not

    establish

    an

    offense-specific

    sentencing

    court . . .

    nexus,

    adequately

    as

    explain[s]

    its reasons for imposing the condition.

    long
    its

    as

    the

    decision

    and

    Worley, 685 F.3d at

    407 (internal quotation marks omitted).


    Brown claims that the district court erred by providing no
    explanation

    for

    imposing

    the

    challenged

    condition.

    Because

    Brown did not object on this basis in the district court, we


    review the claim for plain error.
    777

    F.3d

    700,

    711

    (4th

    Cir.

    See United States v. Price,

    2015);

    see

    United

    States

    v.

    Deatherage, 682 F.3d 755, 763 (8th Cir. 2012).


    To establish plain error, Brown must show that:
    error

    occurred;

    (2)

    the

    error

    was

    affected his substantial rights.

    plain;

    and

    (3)

    (1) an

    the

    error

    Henderson v. United States,

    133 S. Ct. 1121, 1126 (2013); Price, 777 F.3d at 711.

    Even if

    Brown makes the required showing, correction of the error lies


    within our

    discretion,

    which

    we

    exercise

    only

    if

    the

    error

    seriously affects the fairness, integrity or public reputation


    of

    judicial

    proceedings.

    Henderson,

    133

    S.

    Ct.

    at

    1126-27

    (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted).


    We conclude that Brown has not met his burden.

    The record

    shows that the only explanation offered by the district court


    was its adoption, in whole, of the PSR.

    Even if we were to

    conclude the district court erred by solely relying on the PSRs


    justifications,

    as

    Brown

    implies,
    4

    that

    error

    was

    not

    plain

    because the law in this regard is not clear or settled.

    See

    United States v. Ramirez-Castillo, 748 F.3d 205, 215 (4th Cir.


    2014);

    United

    States

    v.

    Guzman,

    603

    F.3d

    99,

    110

    (1st

    Cir.

    2010); United States v. Johnson, 445 F.3d 339, 346 (4th Cir.
    2006).

    The PSR adequately explained the probation officers

    reasons

    for

    recommending

    the

    challenged

    condition

    and,

    therefore, because the district court did not plainly err by


    solely

    relying

    on

    the

    PSR,

    the

    courts

    explanation

    was

    not

    plainly erroneous.
    Brown also claims that the challenged condition is overly
    vague

    and,

    process

    therefore,

    rights.

    that

    With

    its

    respect

    imposition
    to

    this

    violated

    claim,

    disagree as to the applicable standard of review.

    the

    his

    due

    parties

    Brown points

    out that, at the sentencing hearing, the district court only


    mentioned that Brown would be prohibited from associating with
    gang members--not that he would be prohibited from wearing gangrelated attire.

    Because the court did not orally pronounce the

    specific portion of the condition he challenges, Brown argues


    that

    plain-error

    review

    would

    be

    inappropriate

    and

    that

    we

    should instead review his claim for abuse-of-discretion.


    Although

    Brown

    concedes

    that

    he

    did

    not

    object

    to

    the

    imposition of any supervised release condition, he implicitly


    argues that his failure to object should not result in plain
    error review because the courts oral pronouncement deprived him
    5

    of any opportunity to make an objection.


    courts

    of

    appeals

    support

    that

    Decisions from other

    position.

    See,

    e.g.,

    United

    States v. Matta, 777 F.3d 116, 121 (2d Cir. 2015) ([W]e have
    employed a relaxed form of plain error review in those rare
    cases in which the defendant lacked sufficient prior notice that
    a

    particular

    imposed.).

    condition

    of

    supervised

    release

    might

    be

    In this case, however, Brown had ample opportunity

    to object to the challenged condition because it appeared as a


    recommendation in the PSR.

    We will therefore review Browns

    claim for plain error.


    Applying the plain error standard, we conclude that, in
    light of the lack of authority in this circuit, even if the
    condition Brown challenges is impermissibly vague, it is not
    plainly so.

    Thus, Brown has failed to meet his burden.

    We therefore affirm the judgment of the district court.


    dispense

    with

    contentions

    are

    oral

    argument

    adequately

    because

    presented

    in

    the
    the

    facts

    We

    and

    legal

    materials

    before

    this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

    AFFIRMED

    You might also like