USCA4 Appeal: 23-4075 Doc: 32 Filed: 05/17/2024 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-4075

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. PATRICK J. FEDAK, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Greenville. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (4:20-cr-00115-FL-1)

Submitted: December 5, 2023 Decided: May 17, 2024

Before WILKINSON and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. Judge Quattlebaum filed a concurring opinion.

ON BRIEF: G. Alan DuBois, Federal Public Defender, Andrew DeSimone, Assistant Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Michael F. Easley, Jr., United States Attorney, David A.

Bragdon, Assistant United States Attorney, Kristine L. Fritz, Assistant United States Attorneys, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 23-4075 Doc: 32 Filed: 05/17/2024 Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM: Patrick J. Fedak appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea to theft of Government property, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 641. Fedak asserts that the district court reversibly erred when it imposed discretionary conditions of supervised release in the written judgment that it neither announced nor incorporated by reference at sentencing.

We review this claim de novo. United States v. Rogers, 961 F.3d 291, 296 (4th Cir. 2020).

After reviewing the record, we conclude that the district court erred by excluding the discretionary conditions of supervised release when the sentence was announced. Id. at 296, 299-301. We note that the court’s sole reference to “the standard conditions” was insufficient to incorporate the standard conditions adopted by the district court in Standing Order 21-20-5. The appropriate remedy for this error is to vacate the sentence and remand for a full resentencing. United States v. Singletary, 984 F.3d 341, 346-47 & n.4 (4th Cir. 2021).

Accordingly, we vacate the sentence, and remand for resentencing. 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

USCA4 Appeal: 23-4075 Doc: 32 Filed: 05/17/2024 Pg: 3 of 3

QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judge, concurring: While I join the per curiam opinion here, I think our required remedy of full resentencing, while well-settled, is ill-advised. A better approach, in my view, would be a limited remand as described in United States v. Kemp, 88 F.4th 539, 551-53 (4th Cir. 2023).