United States v. O'Brien Hooker

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: August 17, 2023
• Docket: 22-4135
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4135 Doc: 30 Filed: 08/17/2023 Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-4135

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

O’BRIEN SHAQUILLE HOOKER,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:17−cr−00067−FL−2)

Submitted: May 15, 2023 Decided: August 17, 2023

Before KING and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: G. Alan Dubois, Federal Public Defender, Andrew DeSimone, 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, Ashley Foxx, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 22-4135 Doc: 30 Filed: 08/17/2023 Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:

O’Brien Shaquille Hooker pleaded guilty, without a plea agreement, to conspiracy

to commit Hobbs Act robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951(b)(1) (Count One), Hobbs

Act robbery and aiding and abetting, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 1951(b)(1) (Count

Two), and discharging a firearm during the commission of Hobbs Act robbery and aiding

and abetting, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 924(c) (Count 3). The district court imposed

a 166-month term of imprisonment at sentencing, which Hooker appealed. We affirmed

Hooker’s conviction, vacated his sentence, and remanded for resentencing. United States

v. Hooker, No. 18-4194, 2021 WL 4902089, at *2 (4th Cir. Oct. 21, 2021). On remand,

the district court resentenced Hooker to 22 months’ imprisonment on Counts One and Two,

to be served concurrently, and 120 months’ imprisonment on Count Three, to be served

consecutively, for a total term of imprisonment of 142 months. The Court also imposed a

term of five years’ supervised release.

In the present appeal, Hooker contends that the district court erred at resentencing

when it (1) used an incorrect benchmark, (2) failed to sufficiently address his nonfrivolous

arguments for a lower sentence, and (3) failed to orally announce 13 discretionary standard

conditions of supervised release. 1 We affirm.

1 Hooker also contends on appeal, solely “[f]or preservation purposes,” that the district court erred when it denied his motion to dismiss the indictment because Hobbs Act robbery is not a qualifying crime of violence under § 924(c). However, as we stated in our opinion affirming Hooker’s conviction during his first appeal, this argument is foreclosed by our case law. Hooker, 2021 WL 4902089, at *1 (citing United States v. Mathis, 932 F.3d 242 (4th Cir. 2019)).

2 USCA4 Appeal: 22-4135 Doc: 30 Filed: 08/17/2023 Pg: 3 of 4

We review Hooker’s procedural reasonableness challenges for abuse of discretion.

United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 581 (4th Cir. 2010); Gall v. United States, 552 U.S.

38, 41 (2007). A sentence is procedurally unreasonable if the district court errs by, for

example, using a defendant’s “original sentence—rather than his advisory sentencing

range—as an initial benchmark at his resentencing,” United States v. Abed, 3 F.4th 104,

118 (4th Cir. 2021), or failing to “conduct an individualized assessment of the facts . . .

presented,” United States v. Nance, 957 F.3d 204, 212 (4th Cir. 2020) (internal quotation

marks and citation omitted). “The adequacy of the sentencing court’s explanation depends

on the complexity of each case,” United States v. Blue, 877 F.3d 513, 518 (4th Cir. 2017),

but “[t]he key is that the sentencing judge ‘should set forth enough to satisfy the appellate

court that he has considered the parties’ arguments and has a reasoned basis for exercising

his own legal decisionmaking authority,’” United States v. Powers, 40 F.4th 129, 137 (4th

Cir. 2022) (quoting Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 356 (2007)).

Under Rogers, 2 a district court commits reversible error if it fails to orally pronounce

all non-mandatory conditions of supervised release at a sentencing hearing. United States

v. Singletary, 984 F.3d 341, 344 (4th Cir. 2021). A district court may satisfy its obligation

to orally announce these conditions of supervised release, however, by incorporating by

reference a separate set of conditions, including the Guidelines “standard” conditions or a

court-wide standing order. Rogers, 961 F.3d at 299. “[S]o long as the defendant is

informed orally that a certain set of conditions will be imposed on his supervised release,

2 United States v. Rogers, 961 F.3d 291 (4th Cir. 2020).

3 USCA4 Appeal: 22-4135 Doc: 30 Filed: 08/17/2023 Pg: 4 of 4

the courts have reasoned, then a later-issued written judgment that details those conditions

may be construed fairly as a ‘clarification’ of an otherwise ‘vague’ oral pronouncement.”

Id. (citation omitted).

Upon review of the parties’ briefs and the record, we find no reversible error in the

district court’s calculation of or reliance on the correct U.S. Sentencing Guidelines range,

its analysis of Hooker’s nonfrivolous arguments, or its incorporation by reference of the 13

discretionary standard conditions of supervised release.

Accordingly, we affirm Hooker’s conviction and sentence. 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