USCA4 Appeal: 22-4014 Doc: 63 Filed: 12/31/2024 Pg: 1 of 6
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-4014
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
JACQUES ARIELLE KING, a/k/a/ Black,
Defendant – Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:19-cr-00030-BO-1)
Argued: August 20, 2024 Decided: December 31, 2024
Before DIAZ, Chief Judge, QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judge, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ARGUED: Jennifer Claire Leisten, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Kristine L. Fritz, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: G. Alan DuBois, 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, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-4014 Doc: 63 Filed: 12/31/2024 Pg: 2 of 6
PER CURIAM:
Jacques Arielle King pled guilty to federal drug charges. After his first sentencing
and appeal, we vacated King’s sentence because the district court committed procedural
error in pronouncing the sentence. King was resentenced to 160 months’ imprisonment
and three years of supervised release. He again appeals, arguing his resentencing was
procedurally unreasonable. For the reasons that follow, we vacate and remand for
resentencing once more.
I.
In 2019, Appellant Jacques King pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute a quantity
of heroin, 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(b)(1)(C); distribution of a quantity of heroin, 21 U.S.C.
§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C); and possession with intent to distribute a quantity of heroin, id. A
presentence report (PSR) was prepared and submitted to the district court before
sentencing.
King filed three objections to the PSR, challenging: (1) the quantity of drugs
attributed to King; (2) the sentence enhancement resulting from the determination that
King’s son, Jacquarius, was younger than 18 years old when King involved him in selling
heroin, U.S.S.G. § 3B1.4; and (3) the sentence enhancement resulting from the
determination that King was a manager or supervisor of at least five participants, id. §
3B1.1(b). King also requested a downward variance of between 63 and 78 months based
on his traumatic childhood. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
2 USCA4 Appeal: 22-4014 Doc: 63 Filed: 12/31/2024 Pg: 3 of 6
The district court sentenced King to 240 months’ imprisonment and three years of
supervised release. King appealed, and we remanded for resentencing in light of United
States v. Rogers, 961 F.3d 291, 296–300 (4th Cir. 2020) (holding sentencing court must
orally pronounce all nonmandatory conditions of supervised release), and United States v.
Singletary, 984 F.3d 341, 346 & n.4 (4th Cir. 2021) (holding that Rogers error requires
vacating and remanding for full resentencing hearing). United States v. King, 852 F. App’x
752, 752–53 (4th Cir. 2021).
At resentencing, the government requested the court again impose a 240-month
sentence. King renewed his objections to the PSR and raised new factual arguments as to
the drug quantity determination and role enhancement. Specifically, King challenged
paragraph 16 of the PSR, which set out the quantity of drugs sold by Jacquarius and
attributed to King. In doing so, King attacked the reliability of several witnesses’ testimony
based on further investigation his counsel had conducted after King’s initial sentencing.
The district court did not address King’s arguments and continued resentencing to the next
day. When proceedings resumed, the court engaged in a short colloquy with King but did
not address his objections. The court then imposed a sentence of 160 months’
imprisonment followed by three years of supervised release.
King timely appeals. He argues the district court erred in determining the drug
quantity based on unreliable information from informants, imposing a sentence
enhancement for managing and supervising five participants in the criminal activity, and
failing to address his mitigating arguments or explain the 160-month sentence.
3 USCA4 Appeal: 22-4014 Doc: 63 Filed: 12/31/2024 Pg: 4 of 6
II.
When we review a criminal sentence, “[w]e must first ‘ensure that the district court
committed no significant procedural error.’” United States v. Mitchell, 78 F.4th 661, 667
(4th Cir. 2023) (quoting Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007)). When the district
court commits significant procedural error in sentencing a defendant, the proper remedy is
to vacate the sentence and remand for resentencing. Id. Procedural errors include “failing
to consider the § 3553(a) factors . . . or failing to adequately explain the chosen sentence.”
United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 328 (4th Cir. 2009) (quoting Gall, 552 U.S. at 51).
It is “critical” that the district court make an “‘individualized assessment’ based on
the particular facts of the case before it” when sentencing a criminal defendant because “an
appellate court may not guess at the district court’s rationale, searching the record for
statements by the Government or defense counsel or for any other clues that might explain
a sentence.” Mitchell, 78 F.4th at 667 (quoting Carter, 564 F.3d at 329–30). “In assessing
whether the district court properly calculated the Guidelines range, we review the court’s
factual findings for clear error and its legal conclusions de novo.” Id. However, the clearly
erroneous standard does not apply if the district court “fails to explain its rationale.” Id.
The government concedes that the district court did not rule on King’s renewed
objections or adopt its previous factual findings at resentencing. Supp. Resp. Br. at 9.
Nonetheless, it argues we should review King’s sentence for clear error, and further that
any error was harmless because we “already know[] from the 2019 sentencing hearing how
the district court would rule on the objections, and those rulings were supported by the PSR
and [investigator] testimony.” Id. at 2.
4 USCA4 Appeal: 22-4014 Doc: 63 Filed: 12/31/2024 Pg: 5 of 6
When we remand due to Rogers error—as we did in King’s first appeal—the district
court must conduct a complete resentencing. See Singletary, 984 F.3d at 346 & n.4
(declining to limit sentence vacatur to portion affected by Rogers error). But when it
resentenced King, the district court did not rule on the renewed objections, indicate it was
adopting the PSR or prior investigator testimony, or explain its revised sentence.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4014 Doc: 63 Filed: 12/31/2024 Pg: 1 of 6
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-4014
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
JACQUES ARIELLE KING, a/k/a/ Black,
Defendant – Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:19-cr-00030-BO-1)
Argued: August 20, 2024 Decided: December 31, 2024
Before DIAZ, Chief Judge, QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judge, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ARGUED: Jennifer Claire Leisten, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Kristine L. Fritz, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: G. Alan DuBois, 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, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-4014 Doc: 63 Filed: 12/31/2024 Pg: 2 of 6
PER CURIAM:
Jacques Arielle King pled guilty to federal drug charges. After his first sentencing
and appeal, we vacated King’s sentence because the district court committed procedural
error in pronouncing the sentence. King was resentenced to 160 months’ imprisonment
and three years of supervised release. He again appeals, arguing his resentencing was
procedurally unreasonable. For the reasons that follow, we vacate and remand for
resentencing once more.
I.
In 2019, Appellant Jacques King pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute a quantity
of heroin, 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(b)(1)(C); distribution of a quantity of heroin, 21 U.S.C.
§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C); and possession with intent to distribute a quantity of heroin, id. A
presentence report (PSR) was prepared and submitted to the district court before
sentencing.
King filed three objections to the PSR, challenging: (1) the quantity of drugs
attributed to King; (2) the sentence enhancement resulting from the determination that
King’s son, Jacquarius, was younger than 18 years old when King involved him in selling
heroin, U.S.S.G. § 3B1.4; and (3) the sentence enhancement resulting from the
determination that King was a manager or supervisor of at least five participants, id. §
3B1.1(b). King also requested a downward variance of between 63 and 78 months based
on his traumatic childhood. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
2 USCA4 Appeal: 22-4014 Doc: 63 Filed: 12/31/2024 Pg: 3 of 6
The district court sentenced King to 240 months’ imprisonment and three years of
supervised release. King appealed, and we remanded for resentencing in light of United
States v. Rogers, 961 F.3d 291, 296–300 (4th Cir. 2020) (holding sentencing court must
orally pronounce all nonmandatory conditions of supervised release), and United States v.
Singletary, 984 F.3d 341, 346 & n.4 (4th Cir. 2021) (holding that Rogers error requires
vacating and remanding for full resentencing hearing). United States v. King, 852 F. App’x
752, 752–53 (4th Cir. 2021).
At resentencing, the government requested the court again impose a 240-month
sentence. King renewed his objections to the PSR and raised new factual arguments as to
the drug quantity determination and role enhancement. Specifically, King challenged
paragraph 16 of the PSR, which set out the quantity of drugs sold by Jacquarius and
attributed to King. In doing so, King attacked the reliability of several witnesses’ testimony
based on further investigation his counsel had conducted after King’s initial sentencing.
The district court did not address King’s arguments and continued resentencing to the next
day. When proceedings resumed, the court engaged in a short colloquy with King but did
not address his objections. The court then imposed a sentence of 160 months’
imprisonment followed by three years of supervised release.
King timely appeals. He argues the district court erred in determining the drug
quantity based on unreliable information from informants, imposing a sentence
enhancement for managing and supervising five participants in the criminal activity, and
failing to address his mitigating arguments or explain the 160-month sentence.
3 USCA4 Appeal: 22-4014 Doc: 63 Filed: 12/31/2024 Pg: 4 of 6
II.
When we review a criminal sentence, “[w]e must first ‘ensure that the district court
committed no significant procedural error.’” United States v. Mitchell, 78 F.4th 661, 667
(4th Cir. 2023) (quoting Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007)). When the district
court commits significant procedural error in sentencing a defendant, the proper remedy is
to vacate the sentence and remand for resentencing. Id. Procedural errors include “failing
to consider the § 3553(a) factors . . . or failing to adequately explain the chosen sentence.”
United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 328 (4th Cir. 2009) (quoting Gall, 552 U.S. at 51).
It is “critical” that the district court make an “‘individualized assessment’ based on
the particular facts of the case before it” when sentencing a criminal defendant because “an
appellate court may not guess at the district court’s rationale, searching the record for
statements by the Government or defense counsel or for any other clues that might explain
a sentence.” Mitchell, 78 F.4th at 667 (quoting Carter, 564 F.3d at 329–30). “In assessing
whether the district court properly calculated the Guidelines range, we review the court’s
factual findings for clear error and its legal conclusions de novo.” Id. However, the clearly
erroneous standard does not apply if the district court “fails to explain its rationale.” Id.
The government concedes that the district court did not rule on King’s renewed
objections or adopt its previous factual findings at resentencing. Supp. Resp. Br. at 9.
Nonetheless, it argues we should review King’s sentence for clear error, and further that
any error was harmless because we “already know[] from the 2019 sentencing hearing how
the district court would rule on the objections, and those rulings were supported by the PSR
and [investigator] testimony.” Id. at 2.
4 USCA4 Appeal: 22-4014 Doc: 63 Filed: 12/31/2024 Pg: 5 of 6
When we remand due to Rogers error—as we did in King’s first appeal—the district
court must conduct a complete resentencing. See Singletary, 984 F.3d at 346 & n.4
(declining to limit sentence vacatur to portion affected by Rogers error). But when it
resentenced King, the district court did not rule on the renewed objections, indicate it was
adopting the PSR or prior investigator testimony, or explain its revised sentence. Without
these findings, simply put, “there is nothing for us to review” in this case. United States v.
Evans, 90 F.4th 257, 263 (4th Cir. 2024); see also United States v. Wilkinson, 590 F.3d
259, 269–70 (4th Cir. 2010) (district court’s failure to explain its reasoning made finding
“totally incapable of meaningful appellate review”).
We also decline to rely upon the PSR and the investigator’s testimony the district
court adopted at King’s initial sentencing. As explained, the district court neither adopted
the PSR nor this prior testimony at the resentencing at issue here. King raised specific
arguments challenging the quantity of drugs attributed to him and the veracity of evidence
supporting other defendants’ proffers. King also asserted that interviews with informants
showed that the managerial or supervisory role enhancement was not supported by the
evidence. These are fact-intensive determinations, and we will leave them to the district
court to resolve on remand. See Mitchell, 78 F.4th at 673 (declining to review sentence
enhancement when district court made no findings in support and enhancement is not “so
obvious” from the record).
The district court failed to resolve factual disputes raised by King or explain the
revised sentence it imposed. That was significant procedural error. Therefore, we must
vacate King’s sentence and remand for resentencing.
5 USCA4 Appeal: 22-4014 Doc: 63 Filed: 12/31/2024 Pg: 6 of 6
III.
For the foregoing reasons, we vacate King’s sentence and remand for a full
resentencing consistent with this opinion.
VACATED AND REMANDED