USCA4 Appeal: 23-4672 Doc: 31 Filed: 01/16/2025 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-4672

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

ANTHONY BUTKIEWICZ, III,

Defendant – Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, Senior District Judge. (2:19-cr-00029-RAJ-RJK-1)

Submitted: December 3, 2024 Decided: January 16, 2025

Before WYNN and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Geremy C. Kamens, Federal Public Defender, Patrick L. Bryant, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Keith Loren Kimball, Assistant Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES PUBLIC DEFENDER, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant. Jessica D. Aber, United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, Vetan Kapoor, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, Darryl J. Mitchell, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-4672 Doc: 31 Filed: 01/16/2025 Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:

Anthony Butkiewicz, III, appeals the district court’s order revoking supervised

release, sentencing Butkiewicz to 90 days’ imprisonment, imposing new conditions of

supervised release, and ordering Butkiewicz to comply with the standard and special

conditions of supervision that were imposed as part of Butkiewicz’s original sentence.

Butkiewicz asserts that a remand is warranted because the court failed to orally announce

the standard and special conditions of supervised release. We agree and vacate the sentence

and remand for resentencing.

We “review the consistency of the oral sentence and the written judgment de novo.”

United States v. Cisson,

(4th Cir. 2022) (internal quotation marks

omitted). A sentencing court is required to orally pronounce all discretionary conditions

of supervised release it imposes. United States v. Rogers,

(4th Cir. 2020). “[T]he heart of a Rogers claim is that discretionary conditions appearing

for the first time in a written judgment in fact have not been imposed on the defendant.”

United States v. Singletary,

(4th Cir. 2021) (internal quotation marks

omitted). The remedy for Rogers error is remand for resentencing. United States v.

Lassiter,

(4th Cir. 2024) (“Our precedents are clear: When a Rogers

error occurs, we must vacate the entire sentence and remand for full resentencing.”), cert.

denied, No. 23-7568,

(U.S. Oct. 7, 2024).

The district court neither announced the standard or special conditions nor

incorporated those conditions by reference to the original judgment. The district court’s

written order revoking supervised release did not clarify an ambiguous announcement. At

2 USCA4 Appeal: 23-4672 Doc: 31 Filed: 01/16/2025 Pg: 3 of 3

the revocation hearing, there was no mention of the standard and special conditions of

supervision that had been previously imposed except as needed to discuss Butkiewicz’s

violations.

Accordingly, we vacate the district court’s order revoking supervised release 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

3