Background
Michael Windom pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). His plea agreement included a written appellate waiver barring him from appealing his sentence for any reason. The district court imposed a 63-month sentence—within the federal sentencing guidelines—plus three years of supervised release.
Windom appealed, raising two claims. First, he argued the district court procedurally erred by rejecting the parties’ jointly recommended below-guidelines sentence without individualized explanation. Second, he contended the written judgment contained a discrepancy from the oral pronouncement regarding supervised release conditions, citing the precedent in United States v. Rogers.
The Court’s Holding
The Fourth Circuit affirmed the sentence but dismissed part of the appeal. On the procedural error claim, the court found Windom’s appellate waiver valid, knowing, and voluntary based on a proper Rule 11 colloquy. The court concluded his challenge to the district court’s sentencing explanation fell squarely within the scope of the waiver and thus could not be reviewed.
On the Rogers issue, the court identified a discrepancy: at sentencing, the court orally incorporated Maryland Standard Conditions of Supervision authorizing Windom to reside within 72 hours of release, but the written judgment contained two versions of the reporting condition—one referencing “released” and another referencing “authorized to reside.” Following the recent Fourth Circuit decision in United States v. Aborisade (addressing the identical discrepancy), the court held the inconsistency was not material and full resentencing was not warranted. The court affirmed the remainder of the judgment.
Key Takeaways
- Valid appellate waivers in plea agreements effectively preclude appellate review of procedural sentencing claims, including challenges to the district court’s explanation for rejecting defense recommendations.
- Minor technical discrepancies between oral sentencing pronouncements and written judgments regarding supervised release conditions may not be material errors requiring resentencing if the substance is the same.
- The Fourth Circuit noted in a footnote that appellate waivers may not apply to “null supervised release conditions,” suggesting some limits on the waiver’s scope in narrow circumstances.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces the enforceability of appellate waivers as a routine part of criminal plea negotiations in the Fourth Circuit, even when defendants later claim the district court committed procedural error. Defense counsel must carefully explain these waivers to clients, as they will foreclose appellate review of sentencing arguments unless extraordinary circumstances apply.
The holding also clarifies that courts need not achieve perfect textual consistency between oral and written judgments on supervisory release conditions if the substance remains unchanged and clear. This provides some finality to sentencing proceedings while preserving defendant protections against wholly irrational or inconsistent conditions.