United States v. Jacques Duroseau

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: March 29, 2023
• Docket: 22-4341
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4341 Doc: 24 Filed: 03/29/2023 Pg: 1 of 5

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-4341

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JACQUES YVES SEBASTIEN DUROSEAU,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Greenville. James C. Dever, III, District Judge. (4:20-cr-00003-D-1)

Submitted: March 3, 2023 Decided: March 29, 2023

Before DIAZ and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: G. Alan DuBois, Federal Public Defender, Jennifer C. Leisten, Assistant Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Michael F. Easley, Jr., United States Attorney, David A. Bragdon, Assistant United States Attorney, Casey L. Peaden, Special Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. USCA4 Appeal: 22-4341 Doc: 24 Filed: 03/29/2023 Pg: 2 of 5

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2 USCA4 Appeal: 22-4341 Doc: 24 Filed: 03/29/2023 Pg: 3 of 5

PER CURIAM:

Jacques Yves Sebastien Duroseau appeals the amended judgment of conviction

entered after resentencing. Duroseau was convicted of several offenses after he tried to

smuggle firearms from the United States into Haiti. On appeal, this court vacated one of

the convictions and remanded for resentencing. United States v. Duroseau, 26 F.4th 674

(4th Cir. 2022). At resentencing, Duroseau was sentenced to 63 months’ imprisonment

and three years’ supervised release. The revised presentence report prepared for the

resentencing included proposed special conditions of supervised release. Of relevance to

this appeal, the district court adopted the proposed special condition that permits

warrantless searches of Duroseau’s person, home, vehicle, papers, and electronic devices

and similar items. Duroseau contends that this special condition is both procedurally and

substantively unreasonable. Finding no plain error, we affirm.

To preserve objections to proposed conditions of supervised release, they “must be

made with sufficient specificity so as reasonably to alert the district court of the true ground

for the objection.” United States v. Elbaz, 52 F.4th 593, 611 (4th Cir. 2022) (internal

quotation marks omitted). We conclude that Duroseau’s objection to a term of

imprisonment within the Sentencing Guidelines range was not specific enough to preserve

a challenge to the proposed special conditions of supervised release. Accordingly, our

review is for plain error. Id. at 612; United States v. McMiller, 954 F.3d 670, 675

(4th Cir. 2020). “To establish plain error, [Duroseau] must show that an error occurred,

that it was plain, and that it affected his substantial rights.” McMiller, 954 F.3d at 674.

Duroseau must also show that the error “seriously affects the fairness, integrity or public

3 USCA4 Appeal: 22-4341 Doc: 24 Filed: 03/29/2023 Pg: 4 of 5

reputation of judicial proceedings.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). “[D]istrict

courts have ‘broad latitude’ in this space. Still, conditions of supervised release must

comply with the requirements of 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d). That is, they must (1) be ‘reasonably

related’ to the nature and circumstances of the offense, the history and characteristics of

the defendant, and the statutory goals of deterrence, protection of the public, and

rehabilitation; (2) involve ‘no greater deprivation of liberty than is reasonably necessary’

to achieve those purposes; and (3) accord with any pertinent Sentencing Commission

policy statements.” United States v. Castellano, __ F.4th __, __, No. 21-4419, 2023

WL 2056029, at *5 (4th Cir. Feb. 17, 2023) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

While the district court must explain any special condition of supervision, it “need

not robotically tick through an explanation for each supervised release condition,” but it

“must offer enough of an explanation to satisfy us that it considered the parties’ arguments

and had a reasoned basis for exercising its own legal decision-making authority.” United

States v. Suiero, 59 F.4th 132, 143 (4th Cir. 2023) (cleaned up). The reasons for some

special conditions of supervision may be “so self-evident and unassailable” that a

particularized explanation may be unnecessary. Id. “[T]he amount of explanation required

to permit meaningful appellate review of supervised release conditions undoubtedly will

vary with the nature of the condition imposed and the circumstances of each case.”

McMiller, 954 F.3d at 677.

The district court described in detail the offense conduct, noting the planning and

forethought that went into Duroseau’s scheme. The court also noted evidence showing that

Duroseau had the weapons at his home before he tried to smuggle them into Haiti. And

4 USCA4 Appeal: 22-4341 Doc: 24 Filed: 03/29/2023 Pg: 5 of 5

the court highlighted Duroseau’s prior assault conviction to undermine counsel’s claim that

Duroseau was a man of peace. The court also observed that Duroseau did not express

remorse for his smuggling scheme and appeared to be driven by self-gratification and ego.

Given the seriousness of the crimes, and Duroseau’s lack of remorse or any indication that

he would not attempt to engage in similar conduct to provide firearms training to the

Haitian military, it is self-evident why the special condition was warranted.

Accordingly, we conclude that there was no plain error. And even if there were

error in the district court’s explanation, it did not “seriously affect[] the fairness, integrity

or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” McMiller, 954 F.3d at 674 (internal quotation

marks omitted). We affirm the amended judgment of conviction. 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