USCA4 Appeal: 20-4391 Doc: 34 Filed: 09/01/2022 Pg: 1 of 5
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 20-4391
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
OMEGA DRAVILLE BACOTE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles, District Judge. (1:19-cr-00454-CCE-1)
Submitted: July 5, 2022 Decided: September 1, 2022
Before WYNN, QUATTLEBAUM, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ON BRIEF: Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, John A. Duberstein, Assistant
Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER,
Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Sandra J. Hairston, United States Attorney,
Angela H. Miller, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 20-4391 Doc: 34 Filed: 09/01/2022 Pg: 2 of 5
PER CURIAM:
Omega Draville Bacote pled guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to Hobbs
Act robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 1951(a) (Count 1); and discharge of a firearm
during and in relation to a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§§ 2, 924(c)(1)(A)(iii) (Count 2). The district court sentenced Bacote to 51 months’
imprisonment on Count 1 and a consecutive 120 months’ imprisonment on Count 2,
followed by a three-year term of supervised release. Bacote’s counsel 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 Bacote’s sentence is reasonable. Although informed of
his right to do so, Bacote did not file a pro se supplemental brief. We ordered supplemental
briefing to address whether the district court adequately explained the special conditions
of supervised release imposed at sentencing. We now affirm the district court’s judgment.
We review a sentence “under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.” Gall v.
United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007). Under this standard, a sentence is reviewed for both
procedural and substantive reasonableness. Id. at 51. We must first “evaluate procedural
reasonableness, determining whether the district court committed any procedural error,
such as improperly calculating the [Sentencing] Guidelines range, failing to consider the
[18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) factors, or failing to adequately explain the chosen sentence.” United
States v. Nance, 957 F.3d 204, 212 (4th Cir. 2020). If a sentence is free of “significant
procedural error,” then we review it for substantive reasonableness, “tak[ing] into account
the totality of the circumstances.” Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. “Any sentence that is within . . .
a properly calculated Guidelines range is presumptively [substantively] reasonable.”
2
USCA4 Appeal: 20-4391 Doc: 34 Filed: 09/01/2022 Pg: 3 of 5
United States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir. 2014). This “presumption can only
be rebutted by showing that the sentence is unreasonable when measured against the 18
U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.” Id.
Because Bacote did not argue for a sentence lower than the one he received, we
review the reasonableness of his sentence for plain error. See United States v. Lynn, 592
F.3d 572, 577 (4th Cir. 2010). “Under the plain error standard, [we] will correct an
unpreserved error if (1) an error was made; (2) the error is plain; (3) the error affects
substantial rights; and (4) the error seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public
reputation of judicial proceedings.” United States v. Harris, 890 F.3d 480, 491 (4th Cir.
2018) (internal quotation marks omitted).
In their supplemental briefs, the parties predominantly address whether the district
court procedurally erred by failing to orally pronounce the discretionary conditions of
supervised release listed in the written judgment, as required by our decisions in United
States v. Rogers, 961 F.3d 291, 296-98 (4th Cir. 2020), and United States v. Singletary,
984 F.3d 341, 345-46 (4th Cir. 2021). A district court’s failure to orally pronounce
discretionary conditions of supervised release is distinct, however, from a district court’s
obligation to sufficiently explain its reasoning for any discretionary condition it imposes.
See, e.g., Singletary, 984 F.3d at 343-45 (distinguishing claim concerning failure to
sufficiently explain conditions of supervised release with claim concerning failure to orally
pronounce conditions later appearing in written judgment).
“[D]istrict courts have broad latitude” when imposing conditions of supervised
release. United States v. Hamilton, 986 F.3d 413, 419 (4th Cir. 2021) (internal quotation
3
USCA4 Appeal: 20-4391 Doc: 34 Filed: 09/01/2022 Pg: 4 of 5
marks omitted). “The [district] court may impose any special condition that is reasonably
related to the statutory sentencing factors.” United States v. Douglas, 850 F.3d 660, 663
(4th Cir. 2017) (internal quotation marks omitted); see 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d). “Unless a
court adequately explains its reasons for imposing certain conditions, we can’t judge
whether the § 3583(d) factors have been met.” United States v. Boyd, 5 F.4th 550, 557 (4th
Cir. 2021). “[T]he amount of explanation required to permit meaningful appellate review
of supervised release conditions undoubtedly will vary with the nature of the condition
imposed and the circumstances of each case.” United States v. McMiller, 954 F.3d 670,
677 (4th Cir. 2020). Indeed, we have recognized that “a court’s overarching explanation
of a sentence as a whole may be procedurally sufficient in some cases.” Boyd, 5 F.4th at
559 (internal quotation marks omitted).
We conclude that, although the district court’s explanation was brief, the court did
not plainly err in explaining its reasons for imposing the discretionary “special” conditions
of supervised release recommended by the probation officer. The court expressed its
finding that the recommended conditions were “reasonable and relevant to an appropriate
sentencing factor,” after which neither party objected to the presentence report, or to any
of the recommended conditions. Then, when imposing these conditions, the district court
reaffirmed its view that the conditions were appropriate and necessary in this case. Upon
reviewing the record, we further conclude that the district court did not procedurally err in
any other respect, and that Bacote fails to rebut the presumption of substantive
reasonableness afforded his within-Guidelines sentence.
4
USCA4 Appeal: 20-4391 Doc: 34 Filed: 09/01/2022 Pg: 5 of 5
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have
found no meritorious grounds for appeal. We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment.
This court requires that counsel inform Bacote, in writing, of the right to petition the
Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Bacote 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 Bacote. 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
5