USCA4 Appeal: 22-4376 Doc: 30 Filed: 07/25/2023 Pg: 1 of 5
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-4376
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ROBERT BRADLEY LOCKHART,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Harrisonburg. Michael F. Urbanski, Chief District Judge. (5:19-cr-00020-MFU-JCH-1)
Submitted: July 12, 2023 Decided: July 25, 2023
Before GREGORY and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ON BRIEF: Dennis E. Jones, DENNIS E. JONES, PLC, Abingdon, Virginia, for Appellant. S. Cagle Juhan, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-4376 Doc: 30 Filed: 07/25/2023 Pg: 2 of 5
PER CURIAM:
A jury convicted Robert Bradley Lockhart of conspiracy to distribute and to possess
with intent to distribute 100 grams or more of heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1),
(b)(1)(B), 846, and possession with intent to distribute heroin resulting in serious bodily
injury, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C). The district court sentenced
Lockhart to 20 years’ imprisonment and he now appeals. On appeal, Lockhart’s counsel
has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there
are no meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning whether the district court should
have granted Lockhart’s motion for judgment of acquittal under Fed. R. Crim. P. 29.
Although informed of his right to do so, Lockhart has not filed a pro se supplemental brief.
For the following reasons, we affirm Lockhart’s convictions, vacate his sentence, and
remand for resentencing.
“We review the denial of a motion for judgment of acquittal de novo.” United
States v. Savage, 885 F.3d 212, 219 (4th Cir. 2018). In assessing the sufficiency of the
evidence, we decide whether there is substantial evidence to support the convictions when
viewed in the light most favorable to the government. Id. “Substantial evidence is
evidence that a reasonable finder of fact could accept as adequate and sufficient to support
a conclusion of a defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” United States v.
Rodriguez-Soriano, 931 F.3d 281, 286 (4th Cir. 2019) (cleaned up). In making this
determination, we do not resolve conflicts in the evidence or evaluate the credibility of
witnesses. Savage, 885 F.3d at 219. “A defendant who brings a sufficiency challenge
2 USCA4 Appeal: 22-4376 Doc: 30 Filed: 07/25/2023 Pg: 3 of 5
bears a heavy burden, as appellate reversal on grounds of insufficient evidence is confined
to cases where the prosecution’s failure is clear.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).
In order to convict Lockhart of the drug conspiracy under § 846, the Government
had to demonstrate: (1) an agreement between Lockhart and one or more persons to
distribute and possess with intent to distribute heroin; (2) that Lockhart knew of the
conspiracy; and (3) that Lockhart knowingly and voluntarily became a part of the
conspiracy. United States v. Ath, 951 F.3d 179, 185 (4th Cir. 2020). The Government
also had to demonstrate that Lockhart could have reasonably foreseen that the conspiracy
would involve 100 grams or more of heroin. United States v. Brooks, 524 F.3d 549, 558
(4th Cir. 2008). For a conviction under § 841(a) for possession with intent to distribute
heroin resulting in serious bodily injury, the Government had to prove that Lockhart
knowingly possessed heroin with the intent to distribute it and that serious bodily injury
resulted from the use of that heroin. See United States v. Randall, 171 F.3d 195, 209 (4th
Cir. 1999); see also United States v. Robinson, 55 F.4th 390, 401 (4th Cir. 2022). Serious
bodily injury means bodily injury involving a substantial risk of death. 21 U.S.C.
§ 802(25).
We have thoroughly reviewed the record and conclude that the district court did not
err in denying Lockhart’s Rule 29 motion. The Government presented several witnesses
who testified to Lockhart’s drug distribution and activities in the conspiracy, including the
amount of heroin involved over the course of the conspiracy. With respect to the
substantive possession count, the Government demonstrated that Lockhart provided heroin
to the victim, who used that heroin and suffered an overdose. The victim was revived on
3 USCA4 Appeal: 22-4376 Doc: 30 Filed: 07/25/2023 Pg: 4 of 5
the side of the road by first responders and transported to the hospital for treatment. While
the Government’s expert and witnesses who responded to the scene of the overdose opined
that the victim faced a substantial risk of death from the overdose, Lockhart provided the
testimony of an expert who disagreed regarding the severity of the overdose. Although
this testimony was conflicting, “[c]redibility determinations are within the sole province of
the jury and are not susceptible to judicial review.” Robinson, 55 F.4th at 404 (internal
quotation marks omitted). The Government demonstrated sufficient evidence from which
a reasonable jury could conclude that the victim was at a substantial risk of death, and the
district court thus correctly denied Lockhart’s motion for a judgment of acquittal.
With respect to the sentence, however, the criminal judgment lists 13 standard
conditions of supervised release that the district court did not orally pronounce at the
sentencing hearing or state that it was incorporating into the judgment, and the court did
not explain its reasons for imposing these special conditions of supervised release. A
district court must announce all nonmandatory conditions of supervised release at the
sentencing hearing. United States v. Rogers, 961 F.3d 291, 296-99 (4th Cir. 2020). This
“requirement . . . gives defendants a chance to object to conditions that are not tailored to
their individual circumstances and ensures that they will be imposed only after
consideration of the factors set out in [18 U.S.C.] § 3583(d).” Id. at 300. In United States v.
Singletary, we explained that “the heart of a Rogers claim is that discretionary conditions
appearing for the first time in a written judgment . . . have not been ‘imposed’ on the
defendant.” 984 F.3d 341, 345 (4th Cir. 2021). In situations such as Lockhart’s, where the
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4376 Doc: 30 Filed: 07/25/2023 Pg: 1 of 5
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-4376
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ROBERT BRADLEY LOCKHART,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Harrisonburg. Michael F. Urbanski, Chief District Judge. (5:19-cr-00020-MFU-JCH-1)
Submitted: July 12, 2023 Decided: July 25, 2023
Before GREGORY and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ON BRIEF: Dennis E. Jones, DENNIS E. JONES, PLC, Abingdon, Virginia, for Appellant. S. Cagle Juhan, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-4376 Doc: 30 Filed: 07/25/2023 Pg: 2 of 5
PER CURIAM:
A jury convicted Robert Bradley Lockhart of conspiracy to distribute and to possess
with intent to distribute 100 grams or more of heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1),
(b)(1)(B), 846, and possession with intent to distribute heroin resulting in serious bodily
injury, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C). The district court sentenced
Lockhart to 20 years’ imprisonment and he now appeals. On appeal, Lockhart’s counsel
has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there
are no meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning whether the district court should
have granted Lockhart’s motion for judgment of acquittal under Fed. R. Crim. P. 29.
Although informed of his right to do so, Lockhart has not filed a pro se supplemental brief.
For the following reasons, we affirm Lockhart’s convictions, vacate his sentence, and
remand for resentencing.
“We review the denial of a motion for judgment of acquittal de novo.” United
States v. Savage, 885 F.3d 212, 219 (4th Cir. 2018). In assessing the sufficiency of the
evidence, we decide whether there is substantial evidence to support the convictions when
viewed in the light most favorable to the government. Id. “Substantial evidence is
evidence that a reasonable finder of fact could accept as adequate and sufficient to support
a conclusion of a defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” United States v.
Rodriguez-Soriano, 931 F.3d 281, 286 (4th Cir. 2019) (cleaned up). In making this
determination, we do not resolve conflicts in the evidence or evaluate the credibility of
witnesses. Savage, 885 F.3d at 219. “A defendant who brings a sufficiency challenge
2 USCA4 Appeal: 22-4376 Doc: 30 Filed: 07/25/2023 Pg: 3 of 5
bears a heavy burden, as appellate reversal on grounds of insufficient evidence is confined
to cases where the prosecution’s failure is clear.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).
In order to convict Lockhart of the drug conspiracy under § 846, the Government
had to demonstrate: (1) an agreement between Lockhart and one or more persons to
distribute and possess with intent to distribute heroin; (2) that Lockhart knew of the
conspiracy; and (3) that Lockhart knowingly and voluntarily became a part of the
conspiracy. United States v. Ath, 951 F.3d 179, 185 (4th Cir. 2020). The Government
also had to demonstrate that Lockhart could have reasonably foreseen that the conspiracy
would involve 100 grams or more of heroin. United States v. Brooks, 524 F.3d 549, 558
(4th Cir. 2008). For a conviction under § 841(a) for possession with intent to distribute
heroin resulting in serious bodily injury, the Government had to prove that Lockhart
knowingly possessed heroin with the intent to distribute it and that serious bodily injury
resulted from the use of that heroin. See United States v. Randall, 171 F.3d 195, 209 (4th
Cir. 1999); see also United States v. Robinson, 55 F.4th 390, 401 (4th Cir. 2022). Serious
bodily injury means bodily injury involving a substantial risk of death. 21 U.S.C.
§ 802(25).
We have thoroughly reviewed the record and conclude that the district court did not
err in denying Lockhart’s Rule 29 motion. The Government presented several witnesses
who testified to Lockhart’s drug distribution and activities in the conspiracy, including the
amount of heroin involved over the course of the conspiracy. With respect to the
substantive possession count, the Government demonstrated that Lockhart provided heroin
to the victim, who used that heroin and suffered an overdose. The victim was revived on
3 USCA4 Appeal: 22-4376 Doc: 30 Filed: 07/25/2023 Pg: 4 of 5
the side of the road by first responders and transported to the hospital for treatment. While
the Government’s expert and witnesses who responded to the scene of the overdose opined
that the victim faced a substantial risk of death from the overdose, Lockhart provided the
testimony of an expert who disagreed regarding the severity of the overdose. Although
this testimony was conflicting, “[c]redibility determinations are within the sole province of
the jury and are not susceptible to judicial review.” Robinson, 55 F.4th at 404 (internal
quotation marks omitted). The Government demonstrated sufficient evidence from which
a reasonable jury could conclude that the victim was at a substantial risk of death, and the
district court thus correctly denied Lockhart’s motion for a judgment of acquittal.
With respect to the sentence, however, the criminal judgment lists 13 standard
conditions of supervised release that the district court did not orally pronounce at the
sentencing hearing or state that it was incorporating into the judgment, and the court did
not explain its reasons for imposing these special conditions of supervised release. A
district court must announce all nonmandatory conditions of supervised release at the
sentencing hearing. United States v. Rogers, 961 F.3d 291, 296-99 (4th Cir. 2020). This
“requirement . . . gives defendants a chance to object to conditions that are not tailored to
their individual circumstances and ensures that they will be imposed only after
consideration of the factors set out in [18 U.S.C.] § 3583(d).” Id. at 300. In United States v.
Singletary, we explained that “the heart of a Rogers claim is that discretionary conditions
appearing for the first time in a written judgment . . . have not been ‘imposed’ on the
defendant.” 984 F.3d 341, 345 (4th Cir. 2021). In situations such as Lockhart’s, where the
district court fails to announce or otherwise incorporate the discretionary conditions of
4 USCA4 Appeal: 22-4376 Doc: 30 Filed: 07/25/2023 Pg: 5 of 5
supervised release, the appropriate remedy is to vacate the entire sentence and remand for
a full resentencing hearing. See id. at 346 & n.4. We therefore do not address the
procedural and substantive reasonableness of the sentence at this time. See id.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have
found no other meritorious grounds for appeal. We thus affirm Lockhart’s convictions, but
vacate the sentence and remand for resentencing. This court requires that counsel inform
Lockhart, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review. If Lockhart requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such
a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw
from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on
Lockhart.
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 IN PART, VACATED IN PART, AND REMANDED