Antonio Rashaad Dovine was originally convicted in 2013 of multiple counts of Hobbs Act robbery and firearm offenses, receiving a sentence of 1,752 months. In 2023, the district court granted his motion to vacate the sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, vacating one of his firearm convictions and ordering a resentencing. At a July 2024 resentencing hearing, the court granted a downward variance and sentenced Dovine to 420 months, but a procedural error known as a 'Rogers error' required a remand for a new hearing. At the subsequent resentencing in June 2025, the district court again granted a downward variance, imposing a 408-month sentence. Dovine appealed, and his appointed counsel filed a brief under Anders v. California stating there were no meritorious grounds for appeal, while the Government elected not to file a brief.
The Fourth Circuit reviewed the sentence under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard, first ensuring procedural reasonableness and then substantive reasonableness. The court found that the district court correctly calculated the advisory Guidelines range, heard arguments from counsel, allowed Dovine to allocute, and considered the statutory factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). The court noted that the district court sufficiently explained its reasons for imposing the chosen sentence. Regarding substantive reasonableness, the court emphasized that a sentence must be 'sufficient, but not greater than necessary' to satisfy the purposes of sentencing. The appellate court concluded that the 408-month sentence, which included a downward variance, was reasonable given the totality of the circumstances. Additionally, the court reviewed the entire record under the Anders standard and found no meritorious grounds for appeal.
The judgment of the district court is affirmed, meaning Dovine's 408-month sentence stands. However, the case is remanded to the district court with specific instructions to correct the amended judgment. The correction involves adding a special condition of supervision that was orally pronounced but missing from the written order, requiring Dovine to obtain prior approval from the probation officer before incurring new credit charges or opening additional lines of credit. This ensures the written judgment accurately reflects the court's oral pronouncement.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download