USCA4 Appeal: 22-4067 Doc: 39 Filed: 02/02/2024 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-4067

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

RANDALL GARETH KINGMAN,

Defendant – Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. Donald C. Coggins, Jr., District Judge. (8:20-cr-00768-DCC-1)

Submitted: August 31, 2023 Decided: February 2, 2024

Before NIEMEYER and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.

Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Emily Deck Harrill, Assistant Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. Adair F. Boroughs, United States Attorney, William J. Watkins, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-4067 Doc: 39 Filed: 02/02/2024 Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:

Randall Kingman pleaded guilty to possessing child pornography and the district

court sentenced him to a 60-month term of imprisonment to be followed by a lifetime of

supervised release. Kingman appeals that sentence, making several arguments. Having

considered those arguments, we accept only Kingman’s challenge to a special condition of

supervision which, in relevant part, prohibits him from viewing materials that depict nudity

or sexual activity.

After the parties submitted briefing was in this case, the Court issued a published

decision in United States v. Cohen, holding an identical condition had “breathtaking reach”

and vacating it as impermissibly overbroad.

, 256–57 (4th Cir. 2023). * Because

the condition challenged in that case mirrors the condition challenged in this one and (like

there) neither the characteristics of the defendant nor the nature of his offense justify such

a sweeping restriction, we conclude the district court erred. And because that error affects

Kingman’s substantial rights and because leaving it uncorrected would cast doubt on the

fairness and integrity of judicial proceedings, we also conclude that warrants relief under

the plain-error standard. See United States v. Ravenell,

(4th Cir. 2023)

(outlining plain-error standard to be applied to unpreserved claims).

Accordingly, we vacate the relevant portion of the condition and remand for entry

of a modified judgment striking the offending language. See Cohen, 63 F.4th at 256–57

Kingman also moved to place this case in abeyance pending this Court’s decision *

in Cohen. Because that opinion has now issued, we deny that motion as moot.

2 USCA4 Appeal: 22-4067 Doc: 39 Filed: 02/02/2024 Pg: 3 of 3

(vacating because, in such circumstances, the condition imposed a “greater deprivation of

liberty than reasonably necessary”). We affirm the district court’s judgment in all other

respects. 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.

VACATED AND REMANDED

3