PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. No. 08-5223
JOHN E. HARGROVE,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg.
John Preston Bailey, Chief District Judge.
(3:07-cr-00058-JPB-DJJ-1)
Argued: September 21, 2010
Decided: November 19, 2010
Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and AGEE,
Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by published opinion. Judge Agee wrote the opin-
ion, in which Chief Judge Traxler and Judge Motz concurred.
COUNSEL
ARGUED: Tracy Weese, Shepherdstown, West Virginia, for
Appellant. David J. Perri, OFFICE OF THE UNITED
STATES ATTORNEY, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appel-
lee. ON BRIEF: Sharon L. Potter, United States Attorney,
2 UNITED STATES v. HARGROVE
Robert H. McWilliams, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Whee-
ling, West Virginia, for Appellee.
OPINION
AGEE, Circuit Judge:
John E. Hargrove appeals his convictions for attempted
transfer of obscenity to a minor, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 1470 ("Count I"), transfer of child pornography, in violation
of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(1) ("Count II"), and attempted
enticement of a minor, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b)
("Count III"). Specifically, Hargrove asserts the district court
should have suppressed statements he made to law enforce-
ment officers because at the time he made them he was sub-
ject to a custodial interrogation and had not been informed of
his rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).
Hargrove also contends his sentence is substantively unrea-
sonable because the district court erred by considering that
Hargrove exercised his right to a jury trial as a basis for the
sentence imposed. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm
the judgment of the district court.
I.
For a period of several months, Hargrove communicated in
internet chat rooms with two undercover law enforcement
officers posing as underage females. During the same period,
Hargrove also communicated with two actual underage
females.1 The online conversations with the two undercover
officers and one of the actual minors ("S.M.") (collectively
"the three minors") contained graphic sexual talk as Hargrove
described in explicit detail how the three minors should pre-
1
Hargrove’s communication with one of the actual minors was not as
explicit as with the other actual and putative minors.
UNITED STATES v. HARGROVE 3
pare for their chats, how to behave throughout daily life, and
how to "be ready for" their eventual meeting when the three
minors would serve as Hargrove’s sexual slaves. Hargrove
asked the three minors to send him photos of each of them
engaged in sexual acts and also sent them images depicting
child pornography and various sexual activities involving
bondage. As the discussions progressed, Hargrove made
extensive plans with the three minors to coordinate how they
would come live with him as "slave sisters," including coordi-
nating financial and travel arrangements and asking them to
each obtain the signature of her mother so that he could create
false emancipation papers.
As the communications reached the point where Hargrove
was attempting to arrange meeting the three minors in person,
the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI") obtained and exe-
cuted a search warrant on Hargrove’s residence in Bristol,
Connecticut. Michael Chance, a computer crimes task force
officer, was the lead investigating officer present during the
January 5, 2007, execution of the search warrant. FBI Special
Agent Cathy Shumaker was the senior officer assisting with
the case, and was also present during the execution of the
search warrant. In addition to overseeing the search, Agent
Chance interviewed Hargrove, during which time Hargrove
made a number of incriminating statements.
In July 2007, a federal grand jury in the Northern District
of West Virginia indicted Hargrove on Counts I, II, and III.2
Hargrove initially negotiated a "binding" plea agreement with
the Government. The agreement was structured so that Har-
grove would plead guilty to Count III, the Government would
dismiss the remaining charges, and the district court would
impose the negotiated maximum sentence of 240 months’
imprisonment. In the event the district court rejected the plea
2
One of the undercover officers’ online profiles indicated that she
resided in Romney, West Virginia, which is the basis for the proceedings
in the Northern District of West Virginia.
4 UNITED STATES v. HARGROVE
agreement, Hargrove was free to withdraw his guilty plea.
Based on this plea agreement, Hargrove entered a guilty plea
to Count III. The magistrate judge conducted a hearing pursu-
ant to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and
determined that Hargrove’s plea was voluntarily and compe-
tently made.
After the preparation of a pre-sentence report ("PSR"), but
before the district court accepted the plea and sentenced him,
Hargrove moved to withdraw the guilty plea.3 At the hearing
on that motion, the district court granted Hargrove’s request,
explaining:
Normally under these circumstances I would not
permit the defendant to withdraw the plea, but in this
case the plea agreement that was entered into and
tendered to the Court is a binding plea agreement
with a binding sentence that is well below the Guide-
line sentence in this case. At the time I reviewed the
[PSR], and assuming that those things in it are true,
which, of course, if we have a trial will be up to the
jury to determine, but if in fact those things are true,
I had a real concern that the plea agreement as set
forth did not provide for a—for a sufficient level of
punishment.
Mr. Hargrove has now asked to withdraw his plea,
which I would have to let him do if I refused to fol-
low the plea agreement anyway since it is a binding
plea. So, I will permit Mr. Hargrove to withdraw his
plea of guilty.
(J.A. 77-78.)
3
At various times during the proceedings below, Hargrove was repre-
sented by counsel or, upon Hargrove’s request, proceeded pro se. Har-
grove’s representation at any given point in the proceedings is not relevant
to the issues on appeal.
UNITED STATES v. HARGROVE 5
Prior to trial, Hargrove moved to suppress the statements he
made during the January 5, 2007 search of his home, arguing
that because the statements were obtained during a custodial
interrogation and yet without the benefit of Miranda warn-
ings, they should be excluded. A magistrate judge conducted
a suppression motion hearing, at which Special Agents
Chance and Shumaker, as well as Hargrove, testified.
Agent Chance testified that he and a team of between ten
and fifteen law enforcement officers executed the search war-
rant on Hargrove’s Connecticut residence shortly after 6:00
a.m. Approximately five of the officers were part of the entry
team, and the rest — including Agent Shumaker — were
located around the perimeter of the residence. Agent Chance
could not recall who answered the door, but upon entering,
the officers "cleared the residence making sure there was [sic]
no officer safety issues, no weapons, making sure [they] iden-
tified all people on-scene and that . . . [they] were safe."4
(Supp. J.A. 20.) Agent Chance testified that he could not
recall whether his service firearm was drawn or pointed at
Hargrove upon entering the house, but he averred that some
officers did have their firearms drawn during the initial entry
and security sweep, consistent with standard protocol.5
Agent Chance testified that he told Hargrove that he was
not under arrest and was free to leave the house at any time.
He then asked if Hargrove would speak with them and Har-
grove agreed.6 Agent Chance and Hargrove then sat around
4
In addition to Hargrove, Hargrove’s daughter, who Agent Chance testi-
fied was "probably in her 20’s," and the daughter’s boyfriend were inside
the home. (Supp. J.A. 20.)
5
Agent Shumaker testified her gun was not drawn, although she did
have her service firearm with her. She did not know whether anyone on
the entry team had their weapons drawn.
6
Agent Shumaker testified that if Hargrove had expressed a desire to
leave his house, he would have been free to do so, and the agents "would
have just asked how he wanted the premises secured. We were going to
stay and complete the search but he was free to" leave. (Supp. J.A. 50.)
6 UNITED STATES v. HARGROVE
Hargrove’s kitchen table during the subsequent interview,
with Hargrove dressed in his pajamas. Agent Shumaker was
also present, standing in the doorway of the kitchen, but she
did not question Hargrove. Neither Agent had an arrest war-
rant for Hargrove or had any intention of arresting him.
According to both Agents (and Hargrove’s own testimony),
Hargrove was not in handcuffs, he was permitted to smoke
cigarettes, and at no time did Hargrove ask for the interview
to end or protest about any of the questions. Instead, the
Agents testified Hargrove was "polite and cooperative,"
answering questions "at length," and indicating he was willing
to talk further when the interview was finished. (Supp. J.A.
24-25.) Agent Shumaker also testified that "it was [a] relaxed"
setting and Hargrove was cooperative throughout. (Supp. J.A.
49.) According to the Agents, Hargrove was not instructed to
remain seated or forbidden from leaving the room and that he
was "freely moving around" at times during the interview.
(Supp. J.A. 51.) At one point in particular, Agent Shumaker
observed him getting up to "deal[ ] with the cat, going back
and forth from the door or something." (Supp. J.A. 51.) Dur-
ing the interview, Hargrove expressed interest in working
with the police "undercover to help identify people that were
pursuing children." (Supp. J.A. 26.) Hargrove was not read
Miranda rights before or during the interview.7
Hargrove’s version of the search and subsequent interview
differed in some respects from the Agents’. He testified that
his daughter answered the door after the entire household was
awakened by the officers banging on his front door. When he
entered the living room, "an officer [was] standing there with
what looked like an M-16, and there was a laser scope on it
and it was pointed straight at me. I immediately threw my
7
According to the Agents’ testimony at trial, the interview lasted
approximately two hours. At the suppression hearing, Agent Chance testi-
fied that the interview lasted for a long time because Hargrove "had a lot
to say," would answer questions "at length," and was willing to talk further
when the interview was finished. (Supp. J.A. 25.)
UNITED STATES v. HARGROVE 7
hands up in the air and said, ‘I’m not armed.’" (Supp. J.A.
75.) Hargrove testified he was directed to the kitchen, patted
down, and told that Agent Chance had some questions to ask
him. Hargrove claimed that his movement was restricted and
he was not allowed to get cigarettes from the computer desk
in his bedroom. He also testified he did not feel that he could
leave the kitchen because Agent Shumaker "was actually
standing in the doorway between the kitchen and the dining
room" "blocking" the exit. (Supp. J.A. 76.) In addition, he
claimed that at one point he asked to "get up and get [his
minor] daughter and go out on the porch" to smoke, but he
was not allowed to do so because his daughter was being
interviewed by officers in another room. (Supp. J.A. 81.) Har-
grove admitted that the officers’ guns were not drawn while
they were talking in the kitchen, he was not handcuffed, and
they did not threaten him beyond feeling intimidated by hav-
ing a "bunch of armed officers around." (Supp. J.A. 78.) He
testified that the agents did not read him his Miranda rights,
tell him he was free to leave, or any statements "to that
effect." (Supp. J.A. 77.) Moreover, at the time of the inter-
view Hargrove "felt [he] was going to be" arrested because
Agent Chance informed him they had copies of "everything
that [Hargrove] said on the chat log." (Supp. J.A. 76, 79.)
Hargrove admitted that he answered Agent Chance’s ques-
tions even though he "wasn’t real thrilled about it," and that
during the interview he "figured [he] was going to jail, [so]
it didn’t make any difference one way or another" whether he
spoke to the Agents. (Supp. J.A. 80.)
The magistrate judge recommended denying the motion to
suppress. He concluded the interview "was consensual and
was not custodial in nature," and he credited Agent Chance
and Shumaker’s testimony that they informed Hargrove "he
was not under arrest and . . . was free to go at any time during
the interview," and that Hargrove appeared "extremely
relaxed and cooperative during the interview and seemed to
enjoy talking with the agents." (J.A. 157.) The magistrate fur-
ther noted that the interview took place in Hargrove’s kitchen
8 UNITED STATES v. HARGROVE
"in a comfortable atmosphere," and that no evidence of coer-
cion or improper inducement existed. (J.A. 157.)
Hargrove objected to the magistrate judge’s recommenda-
tion, contending that the agents were not there simply to con-
duct the search because they had surrounded the house before
entering, which would not have been necessary if they did not
want to keep everyone inside the residence, and that during
the interview Agent Shumaker "block[ed] [his] entry to his
living room" and Agent Chance "positioned himself between
[Hargrove] and the back door."
The district court adopted the magistrate judge’s recom-
mendation. The court observed that Hargrove’s argument
"that he did not feel free to leave is not dispositive" because
"‘[c]ustody determinations do not depend on the subjective
views of either the interrogating law enforcement officers or
the person being questioned, but depend instead [on] the
objective circumstances of the interrogation.’" Concluding,
the district court found that
[g]iven the testimony of Agents Chance and Shu-
maker, and defendant’s own testimony, that defen-
dant was not handcuffed at the time his statements
were made; that the agents did not draw their weap-
ons in the kitchen; that defendant was told he was
not under arrest and that he was free to leave; and
that the conversation that took place between the
defendant and the agents was amicable and non-
threatening in tone, the [c]ourt finds that defendant
was not in custody at the time of his interview on
January 5, 2007 and, therefore, not subject to the
protection of Miranda warnings. Defendant’s objec-
tion is accordingly overruled.
The case proceeded to trial by jury, and the Government
introduced into evidence the statements Hargrove made to
Agent Chance during the January 5, 2007 interview. In addi-
UNITED STATES v. HARGROVE 9
tion, the two law enforcement officers posing as minor
females and S.M., inter alia, testified against Hargrove. At the
end of the three-day trial, the jury convicted Hargrove on all
three counts.
After hearing the parties’ arguments as to the Sentencing
Guidelines calculation, the district court determined the
appropriate combined adjusted offense level to be 46,
although the Guidelines cap the offense level at 43.8 When
combined with a criminal history category of II, the Guide-
lines called for 120 months’ imprisonment on Count I, 240
months’ for Count II, and life imprisonment on Count III.
After hearing further arguments as to an appropriate sentence,
the district court sentenced Hargrove to 120 months’ impris-
onment on Count I, 240 months’ imprisonment on Count II,
and life imprisonment on Count III, with all sentences to run
concurrently. The court stated that it had considered the
§ 3553(a) factors and found no reason "to deviate downward
from the Guideline[s] sentence in this case." (J.A. 1048-49.)
The court also noted:
I permitted—after the plea had been entered, I per-
mitted Mr. Hargrove to withdraw that plea. And I
did it much more readily than I have ever allowed
anybody to withdraw a plea. And the main reason I
did that was because I did not agree that 240 months
was an appropriate sentence, given what I had seen
in the presentence investigation report.
At that point, the defendant had already, in my
opinion, damaged the life of a young girl. By then
8
The base offense level was 32, but the district court determined the fol-
lowing Guidelines enhancements were applicable: age of the victim (2-
level increase), an offense involving the commission of a sexual act (2-
level increase), distributing pornographic images of a minor engaged in a
sexual act (2-level increase), pornographic images depicting sadistic or
masochistic conduct (4-level increase), and use of a computer service (2-
level increase).
10 UNITED STATES v. HARGROVE
requiring this case to go to trial and requiring her to
come forward and sit in the courtroom in front of 13
jurors, and all the other people in the courtroom, I
think more damage was probably done to the young
lady.
(J.A. 1049.) The court then discussed Hargrove’s diverse and
lengthy criminal history, and concluded that consideration of
that history did not warrant imposing a lesser sentence. Next,
it recounted the graphic nature of Hargrove’s offenses and
related conduct. In light of that conduct, the court observed
that even without the 4-level enhancement for sadistic and
masochistic conduct that it had applied to Hargrove’s Guide-
lines calculation, the Guidelines range would still have
included life imprisonment and that the court would have "im-
posed life." (J.A. 1050.) Moreover, it concluded, "frankly, if
[the Guidelines range] had been lower due to some other
enhancement factor not being included, I feel comfortable that
I would have varied upward and imposed the life sentence. It
is the opinion of this [c]ourt that Mr. Hargrove should never
see the light of day." (J.A. 1050.) Hargrove did not object to
the district court’s explanation of the sentence imposed.
Hargrove noted a timely appeal, and we have jurisdiction
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742.
II.
A. Motion to Suppress
Hargrove first maintains that the district court committed
reversible error in denying his motion to suppress the state-
ments made to Agent Chance because he was under custodial
interrogation at that time and had not been read his Miranda
rights. He asserts that the totality of the circumstances sur-
rounding his making the statements — including the early
hour, the entry into his home by numerous officers with their
weapons drawn and an M-16 aimed at him, being denied per-
UNITED STATES v. HARGROVE 11
mission to retrieve cigarettes or speak with his daughter, and
Agent Shumaker blocking the exit to the kitchen — showed
that the statements were involuntarily made. Although Har-
grove agrees there was evidence to support the district court’s
conclusion, he contends that under the "totality of the circum-
stances" standard there was more evidence from which to
conclude that he reasonably believed it was a custodial inter-
rogation, and the district court should have ruled his state-
ments were inadmissible.9
The issue presented is thus straightforward — whether the
January 2007 interview in Hargrove’s kitchen constituted a
"custodial interrogation." If it did, then Hargrove’s state-
ments, which the parties agree were made without the benefit
of Miranda warnings — were inadmissible against him at
trial. See Miranda, 384 U.S. at 444 (adopting the prophylactic
rule that evidence should be excluded where it is obtained
during a custodial interrogation and without first advising the
accused of his Fifth Amendment rights); United States v. Par-
ker, 262 F.3d 415, 419 (4th Cir. 2001) ("Absent formal arrest,
Miranda warnings only apply where there has been such a
restriction on a person’s freedom as to render him in custody."
(internal quotation marks omitted)). If the interview was not
a custodial interrogation, then the statements were admissible.
Hargrove properly preserved this issue for appeal by mak-
ing the pre-trial motion to suppress and obtaining a definitive
9
Hargrove also briefly contends that Agents Chance and Shumaker
"went out of their way not to memorialize" the substance of the interview
and points to the lack of any contemporaneous written proof of what tran-
spired as a basis for discrediting their version of events. (See, e.g., Appel-
lant’s Br. 24-25.) However, this argument only tangentially relates to the
issue before us on appeal, whether Hargrove was under custodial interro-
gation at the time of the interview. Furthermore, there is no support in the
record for Hargrove’s contention and it is based on his pure conjecture.
Agents Chance and Shumaker testified that it would not have been stan-
dard procedure to make an audio or video recording of the interview.
Accordingly, we do not address this argument further.
12 UNITED STATES v. HARGROVE
ruling as to the admissibility of the statements. See Federal
Rule of Criminal Procedure 51(b) ("A party may preserve a
claim of error by informing the court—when the court ruling
or order is made or sought—of the action the party wishes the
court to take, or the party’s objection to the court’s action and
the grounds for that objection. . . . A ruling or order that
admits or excludes evidence is governed by Federal Rule of
Evidence 103."); see also Federal Rule of Evidence 103(a)
("Once the court makes a definitive ruling on the record
admitting or excluding evidence, either at or before trial, a
party need not renew an objection or offer of proof to pre-
serve a claim of error for appeal."). Consequently, the Court
reviews the district court’s findings of fact for clear error, and
its conclusions of law de novo. United States v. Uzenski, 434
F.3d 690, 704 (4th Cir. 2006) (citing United States v. Parker,
262 F.3d 415, 419 (4th Cir. 2001)). The Court views the evi-
dence in the light most favorable to the Government, the pre-
vailing party below. Id. (citing United States v. Seidman, 156
F.3d 542, 547 (4th Cir. 1998)).
The Supreme Court has described the test for whether an
individual is "in custody" despite the lack of a formal arrest
to be whether, under the totality of the circumstances, "a sus-
pect’s freedom of action is curtailed to a ‘degree associated
with formal arrest.’" Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420, 440
(1984) (quoting California v. Beheler, 463 U.S. 1121, 1125
(1983) (per curiam)). The operative question is whether,
viewed objectively, "a reasonable man in the suspect’s posi-
tion would have understood his situation" to be one of cus-
tody. Id. at 442. This determination is made by examining "all
of the circumstances surrounding the interrogation" and deter-
mining "how a reasonable person in the position of the indi-
vidual being questioned would gauge the breadth of his or her
‘freedom of action.’" Stansbury v. California, 511 U.S. 318,
322, 325 (1994) (per curiam) (quoting Berkemer, 468 U.S. at
440). In conducting this inquiry it is important to remember
that "[a]ny interview of one suspected of a crime by a police
officer will have coercive aspects to it, simply by virtue of the
UNITED STATES v. HARGROVE 13
fact that the police officer is part of a law enforcement system
which may ultimately cause the suspect to be charged with a
crime." Oregon v. Mathiason, 429 U.S. 492, 495 (1977) (per
curiam). But only when there is a custodial interrogation is it
necessary for the police to provide the suspect with Miranda
warnings. Id. (holding law enforcement officials are not
required to administer Miranda warnings to everyone they
question).
Hargrove relies primarily on United States v. Colonna, 511
F.3d 431 (4th Cir. 2007), where this Court held that the total-
ity of the circumstances indicated Colonna was "in custody"
during police questioning. Id. at 436. There, the defendant
was awakened when police kicked open his bedroom door
and, at gun point, ordered him to dress and come downstairs.
During that process, an agent injured the defendant by slam-
ming him into a door jam. Colonna and the other individuals
in the home were continuously guarded by agents. Id. at 433.
Colonna’s home was "inundated with approximately 24 offi-
cers" who controlled where Colonna and the other individuals
sat and restricted their access to the home. Id. at 435. Colonna
was asked to accompany an FBI agent to a vehicle located
outside, where a "full-fledged interrogation took place." Id.
The interrogation lasted "for almost three hours, albeit with
breaks." Id. Although Colonna was not placed under arrest, he
was informed that lying to a federal agent was a federal
offense. Moreover, while agents informed Colonna that he
was "not under arrest," they did not inform him that he was
"free to leave." Id. The Court noted that "a law enforcement
officer simply stating to a suspect that he is ‘not under arrest’"
is not sufficient to "end the inquiry into whether the suspect
was ‘in custody.’" Id. Based on the totality of the circum-
stances, the Court noted that Colonna "did not initiate police
questioning and was never told he was free to leave or that he
did not have to respond to questions." Id. at 436. Moreover,
the "interrogation occurred in a police dominated environment
where the agents did everything to make Colonna, or any rea-
sonable man believe that he was not free to leave." Id.
14 UNITED STATES v. HARGROVE
Our decision in United States v. Parker, 262 F.3d 415 (4th
Cir. 2001), exemplifies where the totality of the circumstances
do not indicate the defendant was "in custody" for Miranda
purposes. There, the district court found the officers informed
Parker she was not under arrest, Parker "was not handcuffed
or otherwise restrained, and the agents did not draw their
weapons in her presence." Id. at 419. The interview occurred
in Parker’s home, and a relative twice entered the room where
agents were interviewing Parker. Parker "was not forced to
enter the room with the officers, and she was never told that
she was not free to leave." Id. Under these circumstances, the
Court concluded Parker was not "in custody" and the district
court did not err in declining to suppress Parker’s statements.
Id.
In the case sub judice, our task, as always, is to assess the
totality of the circumstances rather than focusing on any one
component of the interview. Based on the totality of the cir-
cumstances, we conclude that Hargrove was not subject to
"custodial interrogation" at the time of Agent Chance’s inter-
view.
The record does show that some of the officers were armed
upon entry of Hargrove’s home, directed the occupant’s
actions during the initial safety sweep of the residence, and
conducted a safety pat down of Hargrove. The agents had
authority to secure the premises and detain the occupants tem-
porarily in order to secure the site for conducting a search
pursuant to a valid search warrant. See United States v. Photo-
grammetric Data Servs., 259 F.3d 229, 239 (4th Cir. 2001)
(citing Michigan v. Summers, 452 U.S. 692, 702-03 (1981)),
overruled on other grounds by Crawford v. Washington, 541
U.S. 36 (2004). Although securing premises and controlling
occupants pursuant to a search could support a custody find-
ing in the appropriate circumstances, see, e.g., United States
v. Revels, 510 F.3d 1269, 1274-77 (10th Cir. 2007); United
States v. Mittel-Carey, 493 F.3d 36, 40 (1st Cir. 2007), there
is no evidence in this case that a custodial level of control
UNITED STATES v. HARGROVE 15
extended beyond the initial entry by the search team. As such,
the agents’ actions did not place Hargrove "in custody" when
Agent Chance interviewed him some time later, after the
search was underway. See id. (rejecting defendant’s argument
that he was under custodial interrogation during an interview
that took place during the execution of a search warrant and
after armed officers "entered his apartment" to execute a
search warrant and "frisked him" during the initial entry).
While between ten and fifteen agents participated in the initial
execution of the search warrant, only two agents were with
Hargrove during the interview. Moreover, Hargrove testified
that he was never placed in handcuffs and that although
Agents Chance and Shumaker were armed, their firearms
were not drawn during the interview and they did not threaten
him. The mere presence of armed law enforcement officers
during the interview is not sufficient to create a custodial situ-
ation.
Significantly, the district court found two important facts
concerning what Agent Chance told Hargrove prior to the
interview: both that Hargrove was not under arrest and that he
was free to leave. We must accept those findings because they
have ample support in the record and we have no basis upon
which to conclude that they are clearly erroneous. See United
States v. Murphy, 552 F.3d 405, 409-10 (4th Cir. 2009). The
district court also found that the testimony of Hargrove, Agent
Chance, and Agent Shumaker was consistent as to key facts
underlying its ultimate determination that under the totality of
the circumstances Hargrove was not "in custody" at the time
of the interview. Those facts included: Hargrove was not
handcuffed at the time of the interview, "the agents did not
draw their weapons in the kitchen," and the conversation was
"amicable and non-threatening in tone."
While Colonna held that informing a suspect that he was
not under arrest was insufficient, standing alone, to sustain a
ruling that questioning was non-custodial, the court affirmed
that such a statement was a factor in assessing the totality of
16 UNITED STATES v. HARGROVE
the circumstances. 511 F.3d at 435; see also Davis v. Alls-
brooks, 778 F.2d 168, 171-72 (4th Cir. 1985) ("Though
informing a suspect that he is not under arrest is one factor
frequently considered to show lack of custody, it is not a talis-
manic factor." (citations omitted)). Moreover, the second
statement — that Hargrove was free to leave — was not pres-
ent in Colonna, and affirmatively informed Hargrove that he
did not have to participate in the interview or even remain in
the house.10 See Colonna, 511 F.3d at 436 (citing with
approval United States v. Ollie, 442 F.3d 1135, 1138 (8th Cir.
2006), which "not[ed] that although advising someone that he
or she is not under arrest mitigates an interview’s custodial
nature, ‘an explicit assertion that the person may end the
encounter is stronger medicine.’"). This affirmative statement
of being free to leave goes beyond the merely implied permis-
sion to leave that the Court in Parker noted was important to
its totality of the circumstances analysis. Agent Chance did
not simply refrain from telling Hargrove that he was not free
to leave, but he explicitly informed him he could leave. Cf.
262 F.3d at 419; see also Uzenski, 434 F.3d at 705 (finding
no custodial interrogation where the interviewee was permit-
ted to use the bathroom, the door to the room where the inter-
view was conducted was left partially open at times, and the
agents told him he was free to leave at any time). Such a state-
ment, that the interviewee is free to leave, is not "talismanic"
or sufficient in and of itself to show a lack of custody. How-
ever, it is highly probative of whether, in the totality of the
circumstances, a reasonable person would have reason to
believe he was "in custody."
The magistrate judge and district court also found that the
10
Additional factors distinguish this case from Colonna: for example,
fewer officers were involved, the officers met Hargrove at the front door
rather than entering the home and startling him in his bedroom, there is
no evidence that Hargrove was constantly guarded, and the interview
occurred in Hargrove’s kitchen rather than in a law enforcement vehicle
outside the residence.
UNITED STATES v. HARGROVE 17
interview conducted in Hargrove’s kitchen was in a "comfort-
able atmosphere" and was "amicable" and "non-threatening."
This finding is not clearly erroneous either. And although the
setting of the interview is not singularly dispositive, an inter-
view at a suspect’s residence tends to be more neutral than
one that occurs at a law enforcement facility. A more relaxed
environment usually indicates less formal police control over
the location or the defendant, and thus suggests a setting that
is not of the degree typically associated with a formal arrest.
Oregon v. Elstad, 470 U.S. 298, 315 (1985) (environment not
coercive where interview took place in living room of defen-
dant’s home, with his mother in the kitchen); United States v.
Braxton, 112 F.3d 777, 785 (4th Cir. 1997) (statement not
involuntary where defendant "was interviewed by law
enforcement officers around the kitchen table in his mother’s
home"); see also United States v. Ritchie, 35 F.3d 1477, 1485
(10th Cir. 1994) ("Courts are much less likely to find the cir-
cumstances custodial when the interrogation occurs in famil-
iar or at least neutral surroundings" (alterations, quotation,
and citation omitted)); United States v. Sutera, 933 F.2d 641,
647 (8th Cir. 1991) ("It is also relevant that [the defendant]
was ‘on his own turf.’ . . . While a person may be deemed to
be in custody even in his own home, it is not the type of coer-
cive setting normally associated with custodial interroga-
tion.").
Similarly, there is evidence that Hargrove was permitted to
move about his house so long as doing so did not interfere
with the ongoing search. Agent Shumaker testified that Har-
grove was permitted to move around the house, and specifi-
cally left the kitchen to attend to his cat. Hargrove relies on
two occasions where he contends he was prevented from
doing as he wished — he was not allowed in his bedroom to
retrieve cigarettes and he was prevented from talking to his
daughter and smoking a cigarette with her on his front porch.
However, the record also indicates that these requests would
have interfered with or compromised the Agents’ search of
the home. Hargrove’s cigarettes were located "by [his] com-
18 UNITED STATES v. HARGROVE
puter desk" in his bedroom, where officers were conducting
their search and seizing his computer pursuant to the search
warrant. Although Hargrove was not allowed to retrieve the
cigarettes personally, they were brought to him so that he
could smoke. Similarly, at the time Hargrove wanted to speak
with his daughter on the porch and smoke together, other offi-
cers were interviewing her. Importantly, Hargrove’s testi-
mony was not just that he wanted to smoke outside and was
prohibited from doing so, but that he specifically wanted to go
out there in order to talk to his daughter. Thus, in both cir-
cumstances, the limitation on Hargrove’s freedom of move-
ment was minor. Moreover, because evidence in the record
showed that Hargrove was permitted to move about his house
when it did not interfere with the ongoing search, it cannot be
said that Hargrove’s conduct was curtailed to a "degree asso-
ciated with formal arrest." Cf. Berkemer, 468 U.S. at 440
(quotation marks and citation omitted).
Similarly, although Hargrove described Agent Shumaker as
"blocking" his exit from the kitchen, no evidence suggests
that she was doing anything other than standing in the door-
way overseeing both the interview and the ongoing search.
Indeed, prior to being denominated as "blocking" by his attor-
ney, Hargrove testified only that Shumaker was "standing in
the doorway between the kitchen and the dining room, which
is where she stood until the incident with the cat . . . ." (Supp.
J.A. 76.) There is no evidence in the record that Agent Shu-
maker ever prevented Hargrove from exiting, or that she
threatened or coerced Hargrove to remain in the kitchen. As
such, her mere presence in the doorway of the kitchen was not
sufficient to demonstrate that the agents restrained Hargrove’s
freedom of movement in a manner consistent with being in
custody.
We further note that "[c]ustody determinations do not
depend on the subjective views of either the interrogating law
enforcement officers or of the person being questioned, but
depend instead [on] the objective circumstances of the interro-
UNITED STATES v. HARGROVE 19
gation." Parker, 262 F.3d at 419. Accordingly, Agent
Chance’s and Agent Shumaker’s intent not to arrest Hargrove
at that time, and Hargrove’s belief that he was going to be
arrested are "of little weight" to our inquiry. See id.; see also
Stansbury, 511 U.S. at 323. "The relevant inquiry is how a
reasonable man would have understood the suspect’s position
at the time." Parker, 262 F.3d at 419. Indeed, Hargrove’s
after-the-fact assertions that he felt like he was going to be
arrested and had to cooperate are entitled to limited consider-
ation given the rest of the record and considering the totality
of the circumstances at the time of the interview. See Braxton,
112 F.3d at 781 ("Subsequent testimony by an accused about
his prior subjective mental impressions and reactions must be
carefully scrutinized, as such testimony is always influenced
by his self-interest." (internal quotation marks and alterations
omitted)).
Here, the totality of the circumstances supports the finding
that a reasonable man in Hargrove’s position would have
understood that he was not "in custody" from Agent Chance’s
statements that Hargrove was not under arrest and was free to
leave, as well as the surrounding circumstances of the inter-
view. This conclusion is further bolstered by the evidence in
the record as to Hargrove’s own conduct at the time — coop-
erative, loquacious, and expressing interest in working under-
cover to help the Task Force — as well as his testimony at the
suppression hearing that he did not refuse to speak with the
officers because "at that point I figured I was going to jail,
[and talking to them] didn’t make any difference one way or
another." (Supp. J.A. 80.) Furthermore, Hargrove never asked
for the interview to end, never objected to any of the ques-
tions, and remained "polite" and "cooperative" throughout the
period. (Supp. J.A. 50-51.) For these reasons, we conclude the
district court did not err in denying Hargrove’s motion to sup-
press because the January 2007 interview did not constitute a
"custodial interrogation" that invoked his right to be read
Miranda warnings.
20 UNITED STATES v. HARGROVE
B. Hargrove’s Sentence
Hargrove next asserts that his sentence should be vacated
and the case remanded for resentencing because the district
court erred by considering Hargrove’s decision to go to trial
as part of the explanation for the sentence it imposed. Relying
on Bordenkircher v. Hayes, 434 U.S. 357 (1978), Hargrove
contends that the district court’s statements violated his due
process rights by penalizing him for exercising a constitu-
tional right.11
Since the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v.
Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), the federal Sentencing Guide-
lines have been "effectively advisory," id. at 245, and appel-
late review of district court sentences has been for
"reasonableness." In Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38
(2007), the Supreme Court explained that appellate review for
"reasonableness" involves both procedural and substantive
components. The Court first reviews for procedural reason-
ableness,
ensur[ing] that the district court committed no signif-
icant procedural error, such as failing to calculate (or
improperly calculating) the Guidelines range, treat-
ing the Guidelines as mandatory, failing to consider
the [18 U.S.C. §] 3553(a) factors, selecting a sen-
tence based on clearly erroneous facts, or failing to
adequately explain the chosen sentence—including
11
In Bordenkircher, the Supreme Court held that "punish[ing] a person
because he has done what the law plainly allows him to do is a due pro-
cess violation of the most basic sort." 434 U.S. at 363; see also Burns v.
Gammon, 260 F.3d 892, 896 (8th Cir. 2001) (holding the "prosecution
cannot use the defendant’s exercise of specific fundamental constitutional
guarantees against him at trial" by encouraging the jury to consider that
the defendant "by exercising his constitutional right to a jury trial and to
confront witnesses, forced the victim to attend trial, take the stand and
relive the attack.").
UNITED STATES v. HARGROVE 21
an explanation for any deviation from the Guidelines
range.
Id. at 51. Once the reviewing court determines that the sen-
tence is procedurally reasonable, it proceeds to the second
component of the analysis, the substantive reasonableness of
the sentence. Id.
When conducting this review, the court will, of
course, take into account the totality of the circum-
stances, including the extent of any variance from
the Guidelines range. If the sentence is within the
Guidelines range, the appellate court may, but is not
required to, apply a presumption of reasonableness.
. . . The fact that the appellate court might reason-
ably have concluded that a different sentence was
appropriate is insufficient to justify reversal of the
district court.
Id.
Hargrove does not raise any issues challenging the proce-
dural reasonableness of his sentence. Accordingly, we pro-
ceed to the substantive reasonableness of his sentence.
Ordinarily, we review the substantive reasonableness of a
sentence for abuse of discretion. Id. However, the record
shows that Hargrove did not object to the district court’s
explanation of the sentence imposed. For this reason, the
Government asserts that we should review under plain error
and relies on this Court’s decision in United States v. Lynn,
592 F.3d 572 (4th Cir 2010), to support its argument. Lynn’s
holding was limited to the appropriateness of plain error
review when a party raised an objection to the procedural rea-
sonableness of a sentence for the first time on appeal. Id. at
575. Lynn thus does not address the precise issue raised in this
case, whether plain error review is appropriate when a spe-
22 UNITED STATES v. HARGROVE
cific challenge to the substantive reasonableness of a sentence
is lodged for the first time on appeal.
At oral argument, Hargrove conceded that his failure to
object to the district court’s explanation of his sentence meant
that we should review for plain error. However, because we
have not previously addressed the appropriateness of plain
error review in this context, we decline to rely on Hargrove’s
concession, and instead address the issue directly.
Several circuit courts of appeal have held that appellate
courts review the substantive reasonableness of a sentence for
abuse of discretion regardless of whether the parties noted an
objection below. However, a close review of these decisions
shows that the actual challenge on appeal was to the substan-
tive reasonableness of the length of the sentence rather than
another specific component of the substantive reasonableness
of the sentence. The basis for the holding that a party need not
specifically preserve an objection only to the length of the
sentence appears to be the belief that it is unnecessary to
require a defendant to "object" and in essence immediately
request "reconsideration" of a court’s sentencing decision
after having just presented argument as to an appropriate
length of the sentence. See, e.g., United States v. Wiley, 509
F.3d 474, 477 (8th Cir. 2007) ("such a[n] [after-the-fact
objection requirement] is not warranted, at least where a party
asserts only that the length of the sentence is unreasonable
with regard to § 3553(a) . . . ." (emphasis in original)); see
also United States v. Autery, 555 F.3d 864, 870-71 (9th Cir.
2009); United States v. Bras, 483 F.3d 103, 113 (D.C. Cir.
2007); United States v. Castro-Juarez, 425 F.3d 430, 433-34
(7th Cir. 2005).
In contrast, the Fifth, Sixth, and Tenth Circuits have held
that the substantive reasonableness of a sentence is subject to
plain error review when the defendant raises a specific claim
of legal error on appeal and not merely a challenge to the
length of the sentence, but failed to raise the same basis in the
UNITED STATES v. HARGROVE 23
district court. See United States v. Stall, 581 F.3d 276, 283
(6th Cir. 2009) (citing United States v. Vonner, 516 F.3d 382,
391-92 (6th Cir. 2008) (en banc)); United States v. Whitelaw,
580 F.3d 256, 259-60 (5th Cir. 2009) (citing United States v.
Peltier, 505 F.3d 389, 390-92 (5th Cir. 2007)); United States
v. Lopez-Flores, 444 F.3d 1218, 1220-21 (10th Cir. 2006).
In particular, the Fifth Circuit has noted that presenting "a
specific legal error distinguishes [a] case from those that have
held that the defendant need not specifically object that a sen-
tence is ‘unreasonable’ to preserve a reasonableness objection
on appeal." United States v. Hernandez-Martin, 485 F.3d 270,
272 n.1 (5th Cir. 2007). Thus, where a defendant raised the
"specific legal error" that the sentencing judge "considered an
inappropriate factor" in deciding what sentence to impose, the
court reviewed only for plain error because the defendant
failed to raise the objection below. Id. at 272. Similarly, the
Tenth Circuit has noted the difference between challenging
the reasonableness of the length of the sentence generally and
challenging the method of getting there, and concluded that
plain error review is appropriate in the latter circumstance,
where "the usual reasons for requiring a contemporaneous
objection apply." Lopez-Flores, 444 F.3d at 1221.
Here, rather than simply challenging the substantive rea-
sonableness of his sentence due to its length or non-specific
considerations, Hargrove raises a specific allegation of error
— that the district court considered the improper factor of
exercising his right to trial — during the sentencing hearing.
This claim of error was not addressed at all in Hargrove’s ear-
lier arguments in favor of a below-Guidelines sentence. It was
an alleged error that arose during the court’s statements
explaining the basis for the sentence it imposed. Hargrove
failed to object to it at the time, thus denying the district court
the opportunity to consider Hargrove’s argument and correct
the purported error. Hargrove raises this specific issue for the
first time on appeal. Under these circumstances, we conclude
that it is appropriate to apply the general principle established
24 UNITED STATES v. HARGROVE
in Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 52(b), that in the
absence of proper preservation, plain-error review applies.
See Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(b) ("A plain error that affects substan-
tial rights may be considered even though it was not brought
to the [district] court’s attention."). Accordingly, we review
Hargrove’s argument for plain error.
To establish plain error, Hargrove must show (1) that the
trial court erred, (2) that the error is clear and obvious, and (3)
that the error affected his substantial rights. See United States
v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732-34 (1993). Even when this bur-
den is met, we have discretion whether to recognize the error,
and should not do so unless the error "seriously affects the
fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceed-
ings." Id. at 736 (quotation marks and alterations omitted).
Assuming, without deciding, that the first two requirements
are met, we nonetheless conclude that Hargrove has not satis-
fied the third requirement of showing that the district court’s
reference to the victim testifying at trial affected Hargrove’s
substantial rights. An error affects a defendant’s substantial
rights if the error "affected the outcome of the district court
proceedings." Olano, 507 U.S. at 734. "To satisfy this require-
ment in the sentencing context, the defendant must show that
he would have received a lower sentence had the error not
occurred."12 United States v. Knight, 606 F.3d 171, 178 (4th
Cir. 2010). Hargrove cannot clear this high hurdle. The dis-
trict court’s sentence was within both the statutory maximum
and the properly-calculated Sentencing Guidelines range. The
district court considered and addressed the § 3553(a) factors
in explaining why it was imposing the sentence. In particular,
it reiterated that Hargrove’s criminal history and the serious-
ness of the offense justified the sentence it was imposing. And
it emphasized that it would impose the identical sentence even
12
At oral argument, Hargrove asserted that he need only show that he
could have received a lower sentence in order to satisfy this requirement.
Under our circuit’s precedent, that argument is clearly wrong.
UNITED STATES v. HARGROVE 25
if Hargrove had a lower Guidelines range for any reason
because it would have varied upward to life imprisonment due
to the nature of Hargrove’s conduct, which had led the court
to conclude that "Hargrove should never see the light of day."
(J.A. 1050.) Given this context and the district court’s clear
statements, Hargrove cannot show that he "would have
received a lower sentence" had the district court not also men-
tioned that the victim incurred further harm by testifying at
trial. Accordingly, Hargrove has not showed that the district
court plainly erred and that resentencing is required.
III.
For the aforementioned reasons, we hold that the district
court did not err in denying Hargrove’s motion to suppress
statements he made to law enforcement agents in January
2007. In addition, we hold that the district court did not com-
mit plain error during sentencing. Accordingly, we affirm the
district court’s judgment.
AFFIRMED