Background
Julian Jared Gill appealed his 111-month sentence for one conviction of possession of a firearm by a felon and two convictions of assault towards a federal law enforcement officer. The consolidated appeals arose from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina at Charlotte, where Senior District Judge Michael F. Urbanski presided over the underlying criminal proceedings.
Gill challenged the district court’s decision to conduct two separate sentencing hearings and issue two separate judgments rather than grouping his three convictions into a single judgment with concurrent sentences. The opinion identifies no objection by Gill to that decision in the district court. The government’s response brief identified plain error as the applicable standard of review, but a footnote in the opinion states that Gill filed no reply brief.
The Court’s Holding
The Fourth Circuit affirmed both district court judgments in an unpublished per curiam opinion. It explained that when a defendant fails to preserve an issue by timely objecting in the district court, the issue is generally reviewed only for plain error. The court cited United States v. Oceanic Illsabe Ltd., 889 F.3d 178, 194 (4th Cir. 2018); United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 577 (4th Cir. 2010); and United States v. Boykin, 669 F.3d 467, 470 (4th Cir. 2012).
Under Oceanic, plain-error review assesses whether there is an error, whether the error is clear or obvious, and whether it affected the appellant’s substantial rights. The court nevertheless did not apply those requirements to the merits of Gill’s sentencing challenge. It held that Gill forfeited any argument concerning the separate sentencing hearings and judgments because his opening brief did not even mention the plain-error standard, much less establish its requirements.
The court relied on Greer v. United States, 593 U.S. 503, 512 (2021), for the proposition that unpreserved errors must be analyzed for plain error under Rule 52(b), and on Greer’s statement that the defendant bears the burden of establishing each requirement for plain-error relief. It also cited United States v. McBride, 94 F.4th 1036, 1045 (10th Cir. 2024), which describes arguments as effectively forfeited when a defendant both fails to preserve them below and fails to argue plain error on appeal. The court therefore declined to consider Gill’s unpreserved arguments and affirmed. It dispensed with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions were adequately presented in the materials before it and argument would not aid the decisional process.
Key Takeaways
- The Fourth Circuit affirmed Gill’s 111-month sentence and the district court’s two judgments in consolidated appeals Nos. 25-4255 and 25-4256.
- The decision rested on appellate forfeiture: Gill did not preserve his sentencing objection below and did not address plain-error review in his opening brief.
- The court did not decide whether separate sentencing hearings and judgments were substantively permissible or whether grouping the convictions was required.
- The unpublished per curiam opinion is not binding precedent in the Fourth Circuit.
Why It Matters
The disposition illustrates the practical consequences of failing to address the standard of review for an unpreserved sentencing challenge. Even where an appellant identifies a potential procedural problem with separate hearings and judgments, the opening brief must confront plain-error review and carry the appellant’s burden under that standard.
The ruling is circumstance-specific rather than a general approval of separate sentencing proceedings. The court declined to consider Gill’s arguments because of their presentation on appeal, leaving the underlying sentencing question unresolved in this opinion.