USCA4 Appeal: 19-4079 Doc: 78 Filed: 02/02/2024 Pg: 1 of 7
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 19-4079
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
QUINN HAKEEM MCCRAY,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, Chief District Judge. (4:18-cr-00647-RBH-1)
Submitted: January 23, 2024 Decided: February 2, 2024
Before GREGORY and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ON BRIEF: Kimberly H. Albro, Assistant Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. Adair F. Boroughs, United States Attorney, Tsering Jan Van Der Kuijp, Attorney Advisor, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 19-4079 Doc: 78 Filed: 02/02/2024 Pg: 2 of 7
PER CURIAM:
Quinn Hakeem McCray pled guilty to possession of a firearm by a convicted felon,
in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2), (e). The district court sentenced McCray
to 180 months’ imprisonment and five years of supervised release. On appeal, McCray
argues that the district court erred under United States v. Rogers, 961 F.3d 291 (4th Cir.
2020), because it did not adequately announce the standard conditions of supervised release
at sentencing, and its oral pronouncement of the condition requiring McCray to report to
the probation officer is inconsistent with the reporting condition in the written judgment.
McCray also contends that his sentence is procedurally unreasonable because the court did
not explain why it imposed the Sentencing Guidelines’ standard conditions and the
probation officer, in the presentence report, suggested that the Guidelines’ standard
conditions were mandatory. 1 Finding no error, we affirm.
“[A] district court must orally pronounce all non-mandatory conditions of
supervised release at the sentencing hearing.” United States v. Singletary, 984 F.3d 341,
344 (4th Cir. 2021). “Discretionary conditions that appear for the first time in a subsequent
written judgment . . . are nullities; the defendant has not been sentenced to those
conditions, and a remand for resentencing is required.” Id. (citing Rogers, 961 F.3d at 295,
1 In his initial opening brief, McCray argued that his conviction was invalid following the Supreme Court’s decision in Rehaif v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2191 (2019), and that the district court improperly relied on one of his state drug convictions to enhance his sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e). However, because McCray expressly withdraws these arguments in his supplemental opening brief, we do not consider them.
2 USCA4 Appeal: 19-4079 Doc: 78 Filed: 02/02/2024 Pg: 3 of 7
300-01). To “satisfy its obligation to orally pronounce discretionary conditions,” a district
court may do so “through incorporation—by incorporating, for instance, all Guidelines
‘standard’ conditions when it pronounces a supervised-release sentence, and then detailing
those conditions in the written judgment.” Rogers, 961 F.3d at 299.
On appeal, McCray contends that the district court failed to adequately pronounce
at sentencing the 13 standard conditions of supervised release listed in the criminal
judgment. Because McCray did not raise this issue before the district court, we review for
plain error. United States v. Elbaz, 52 F.4th 593, 611-12 (4th Cir. 2022), cert. denied, 144
S. Ct. 278 (2023). “To establish plain error, [McCray] must show that an error occurred,
that it was plain, and that it affected his substantial rights.” United States v. McMiller, 954
F.3d 670, 674 (4th Cir. 2020). McCray must also show that the error “seriously affects the
fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Id. (internal quotation
marks omitted).
Here, the district court ordered McCray to “comply with the mandatory and standard
conditions of supervision outlined in 18 U.S.C. [§] 3583(d).” (J.A. 77). 2 McCray argues
that, because § 3583(d) does not list the standard conditions, and instead only describes the
criteria for imposing discretionary conditions, the district court could not have imposed the
standard conditions listed in the judgment by reference to § 3583(d). McCray’s claim is
foreclosed by our decision in United States v. Cisson, 33 F.4th 185 (4th Cir. 2022). In
Cisson, the district court stated at sentencing “that it would impose the ‘mandatory and
2 “J.A.” refers to the Joint Appendix filed by the parties in this appeal.
3 USCA4 Appeal: 19-4079 Doc: 78 Filed: 02/02/2024 Pg: 4 of 7
standard conditions’ of supervised release.” Id. at 194 (emphasis omitted). We observed
that the District of South Carolina has no standing order listing supervised release
conditions that differ from the standard conditions in the Guidelines. Id.; see U.S.
Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 5D1.3(c), p.s. (2018). “Thus, there [was] no other set of
‘standard’ conditions to which the [district] court could have been referring other than the
Guidelines ‘standard’ conditions.” Cisson, 33 F.4th at 194. Because there were no other
standard conditions of supervision to which the district court could have been referring in
this case, the district court sufficiently pronounced through incorporation the standard
conditions in the Guidelines. See id.
McCray also argues that the district court committed Rogers error because the first
standard condition in the judgment materially differed from the court’s oral pronouncement
of that condition at sentencing. Specifically, at sentencing, the district court ordered that,
upon his release from custody, McCray report to the probation office in the federal judicial
“district to which [he] is released.” (J.A. 77). The judgment, however, instructed that,
upon his release, McCray report to the probation office in the “district where [he is]
authorized to reside.” (J.A. 85). McCray asserts that this facial discrepancy constitutes
Rogers error. When “a defendant claims that a district court committed a Rogers error, we
review the consistency of the defendant’s oral sentence and the written judgment de novo.”
Cisson, 33 F.4th at 193 (cleaned up).
A material discrepancy between a discretionary condition as pronounced and as
detailed in a written judgment may constitute Rogers error. See id. at 194 & n.6. However,
McCray fails to demonstrate a reversible inconsistency under Rogers. The district court at
4 USCA4 Appeal: 19-4079 Doc: 78 Filed: 02/02/2024 Pg: 5 of 7
the sentencing hearing orally pronounced through incorporation the standard conditions in
USSG § 5D1.3(c), p.s., which included the condition that McCray report to the probation
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
USCA4 Appeal: 19-4079 Doc: 78 Filed: 02/02/2024 Pg: 1 of 7
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 19-4079
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
QUINN HAKEEM MCCRAY,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, Chief District Judge. (4:18-cr-00647-RBH-1)
Submitted: January 23, 2024 Decided: February 2, 2024
Before GREGORY and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ON BRIEF: Kimberly H. Albro, Assistant Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. Adair F. Boroughs, United States Attorney, Tsering Jan Van Der Kuijp, Attorney Advisor, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 19-4079 Doc: 78 Filed: 02/02/2024 Pg: 2 of 7
PER CURIAM:
Quinn Hakeem McCray pled guilty to possession of a firearm by a convicted felon,
in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2), (e). The district court sentenced McCray
to 180 months’ imprisonment and five years of supervised release. On appeal, McCray
argues that the district court erred under United States v. Rogers, 961 F.3d 291 (4th Cir.
2020), because it did not adequately announce the standard conditions of supervised release
at sentencing, and its oral pronouncement of the condition requiring McCray to report to
the probation officer is inconsistent with the reporting condition in the written judgment.
McCray also contends that his sentence is procedurally unreasonable because the court did
not explain why it imposed the Sentencing Guidelines’ standard conditions and the
probation officer, in the presentence report, suggested that the Guidelines’ standard
conditions were mandatory. 1 Finding no error, we affirm.
“[A] district court must orally pronounce all non-mandatory conditions of
supervised release at the sentencing hearing.” United States v. Singletary, 984 F.3d 341,
344 (4th Cir. 2021). “Discretionary conditions that appear for the first time in a subsequent
written judgment . . . are nullities; the defendant has not been sentenced to those
conditions, and a remand for resentencing is required.” Id. (citing Rogers, 961 F.3d at 295,
1 In his initial opening brief, McCray argued that his conviction was invalid following the Supreme Court’s decision in Rehaif v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2191 (2019), and that the district court improperly relied on one of his state drug convictions to enhance his sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e). However, because McCray expressly withdraws these arguments in his supplemental opening brief, we do not consider them.
2 USCA4 Appeal: 19-4079 Doc: 78 Filed: 02/02/2024 Pg: 3 of 7
300-01). To “satisfy its obligation to orally pronounce discretionary conditions,” a district
court may do so “through incorporation—by incorporating, for instance, all Guidelines
‘standard’ conditions when it pronounces a supervised-release sentence, and then detailing
those conditions in the written judgment.” Rogers, 961 F.3d at 299.
On appeal, McCray contends that the district court failed to adequately pronounce
at sentencing the 13 standard conditions of supervised release listed in the criminal
judgment. Because McCray did not raise this issue before the district court, we review for
plain error. United States v. Elbaz, 52 F.4th 593, 611-12 (4th Cir. 2022), cert. denied, 144
S. Ct. 278 (2023). “To establish plain error, [McCray] must show that an error occurred,
that it was plain, and that it affected his substantial rights.” United States v. McMiller, 954
F.3d 670, 674 (4th Cir. 2020). McCray must also show that the error “seriously affects the
fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Id. (internal quotation
marks omitted).
Here, the district court ordered McCray to “comply with the mandatory and standard
conditions of supervision outlined in 18 U.S.C. [§] 3583(d).” (J.A. 77). 2 McCray argues
that, because § 3583(d) does not list the standard conditions, and instead only describes the
criteria for imposing discretionary conditions, the district court could not have imposed the
standard conditions listed in the judgment by reference to § 3583(d). McCray’s claim is
foreclosed by our decision in United States v. Cisson, 33 F.4th 185 (4th Cir. 2022). In
Cisson, the district court stated at sentencing “that it would impose the ‘mandatory and
2 “J.A.” refers to the Joint Appendix filed by the parties in this appeal.
3 USCA4 Appeal: 19-4079 Doc: 78 Filed: 02/02/2024 Pg: 4 of 7
standard conditions’ of supervised release.” Id. at 194 (emphasis omitted). We observed
that the District of South Carolina has no standing order listing supervised release
conditions that differ from the standard conditions in the Guidelines. Id.; see U.S.
Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 5D1.3(c), p.s. (2018). “Thus, there [was] no other set of
‘standard’ conditions to which the [district] court could have been referring other than the
Guidelines ‘standard’ conditions.” Cisson, 33 F.4th at 194. Because there were no other
standard conditions of supervision to which the district court could have been referring in
this case, the district court sufficiently pronounced through incorporation the standard
conditions in the Guidelines. See id.
McCray also argues that the district court committed Rogers error because the first
standard condition in the judgment materially differed from the court’s oral pronouncement
of that condition at sentencing. Specifically, at sentencing, the district court ordered that,
upon his release from custody, McCray report to the probation office in the federal judicial
“district to which [he] is released.” (J.A. 77). The judgment, however, instructed that,
upon his release, McCray report to the probation office in the “district where [he is]
authorized to reside.” (J.A. 85). McCray asserts that this facial discrepancy constitutes
Rogers error. When “a defendant claims that a district court committed a Rogers error, we
review the consistency of the defendant’s oral sentence and the written judgment de novo.”
Cisson, 33 F.4th at 193 (cleaned up).
A material discrepancy between a discretionary condition as pronounced and as
detailed in a written judgment may constitute Rogers error. See id. at 194 & n.6. However,
McCray fails to demonstrate a reversible inconsistency under Rogers. The district court at
4 USCA4 Appeal: 19-4079 Doc: 78 Filed: 02/02/2024 Pg: 5 of 7
the sentencing hearing orally pronounced through incorporation the standard conditions in
USSG § 5D1.3(c), p.s., which included the condition that McCray report to the probation
office in the district where he is authorized to reside, but also ordered McCray to report in
the district to which he is released. Thus, the district court’s oral pronouncement itself was
inconsistent, as it left ambiguous where McCray must report upon his release from custody.
“[W]here the precise contours of an oral sentence are ambiguous, we may look to the
written judgment to clarify the district court’s intent.” Rogers, 961 F.3d at 299 (citing
United States v. Osborne, 345 F.3d 281, 283 n.1 (4th Cir. 2003)). We are satisfied that the
written judgment’s inclusion of the reporting condition in USSG § 5D1.3(c)(1), p.s.,
dispels the ambiguity in the district court’s oral pronouncement and confirms the court’s
intent to require McCray to report to the probation office in the district where he is
authorized to reside.
Next, McCray contends that his sentence is procedurally unreasonable because the
district court failed to explain why it imposed the standard conditions of supervised release
and treated the standard conditions as mandatory. “District courts have broad latitude to
impose discretionary conditions of supervised release.” United States v. Boyd, 5 F.4th 550,
557 (4th Cir. 2021) (internal quotation marks omitted). A district court may impose any
discretionary condition so long as it “is reasonably related to the statutory sentencing
factors referenced in 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d)(1).” United States v. Douglas, 850 F.3d 660,
663 (4th Cir. 2017) (internal quotation marks omitted). The condition must “involve[] no
greater deprivation of liberty than is reasonably necessary” to satisfy these factors and be
5 USCA4 Appeal: 19-4079 Doc: 78 Filed: 02/02/2024 Pg: 6 of 7
“consistent with any pertinent policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission.”
18 U.S.C. § 3583(d)(2), (3).
A district court must explain why a discretionary condition is warranted under
§ 3583(d). Boyd, 5 F.4th at 557. However, “[t]he degree of explanation required—the
appropriateness of brevity or length, conciseness or detail, when to write, what to say—
varies with the complexity of a given case.” Id. (cleaned up). At bottom, “a sentencing
court must always offer enough of an explanation to satisfy us that it has considered the
parties’ arguments and has a reasoned basis for exercising its own legal decision-making
authority.” Id. at 559 (cleaned up). “[I]f the reasons for a given condition are self-evident,
and a defendant fails to raise nonfrivolous objections, a sentence-as-a-whole explanation
can suffice.” Id. (cleaned up). Here, because McCray did not object to the district court’s
imposition of the discretionary conditions of supervised release, we review his claim for
plain error. Elbaz, 52 F.4th at 611-13.
We conclude that McCray has not shown plain error. In light of McCray’s
significant and often violent criminal history, the district court’s reasons for imposing the
standard conditions of supervised release are self-evident. Moreover, the court provided
an adequate explanation for the sentence as a whole, emphasizing the severity of McCray’s
instant offense and criminal history while also recognizing McCray’s difficult upbringing
and cognitive limitations. Lastly, while McCray’s presentence report did suggest that the
standard conditions “will be ordered,” (J.A. 134), “presentence reports do not have the
force of law,” Cisson, 33 F.4th at 193, and there is no evidence in the record that the court
6 USCA4 Appeal: 19-4079 Doc: 78 Filed: 02/02/2024 Pg: 7 of 7
believed that the standard conditions were mandatory. We therefore discern no procedural
error in the court’s imposition of the standard conditions of supervised release.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. We also deny as moot
McCray’s motion for summary disposition. 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