United States v. Brown – Do It For The Caselaw

Holding: The court dismissed the appeal regarding issues barred by the plea agreement's appeal waiver and affirmed the remainder of the criminal judgment.
Standard: De novo review of appellate waiver enforceability; de novo review of consistency between oral sentence and written judgment.
Vote: Unanimous per curiam decision dismissing in part and affirming in part.
Practical effect: The decision reinforces the enforceability of broad appellate waivers in plea agreements and clarifies that incorporating standing orders for supervised release conditions satisfies the oral pronouncement requirement.

The Fourth Circuit dismissed in part and affirmed in part the appeal of a defendant convicted of armed bank robbery. The court enforced a broad appellate waiver in the defendant's plea agreement while finding no reversible error regarding the oral pronouncement of supervised release conditions.

Background

Shiheem Octavious Brown pleaded guilty to armed bank robbery and brandishing a firearm in violation of federal statutes. The district court sentenced him to two hundred sixteen months of imprisonment and five years of supervised release. Brown’s counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California asserting no meritorious grounds for appeal, while the Government moved to dismiss based on an appeal waiver in the plea agreement.

The court’s reasoning

The court reviewed the appellate waiver de novo and found it valid and enforceable because Brown knowingly and voluntarily agreed to it. The waiver barred challenges to the reasonableness or calculation of the sentence. Regarding the supervised release conditions, the court found the district court complied with United States v. Rogers by expressly incorporating the standing order and announcing special conditions orally. The court concluded the oral pronouncement matched the written judgment and found no other meritorious issues under Anders.

We review an appellate waiver de novo to determine its enforceability and will enforce the waiver if it is valid and if the issue being appealed falls within its scope.

United States v. Carter, 87 F.4th 217, 223-24 (4th Cir. 2023)

What it means going forward

The decision reinforces the enforceability of broad appellate waivers in plea agreements and clarifies that incorporating standing orders for supervised release conditions satisfies the oral pronouncement requirement.