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 appeal came from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina at Charlotte, where Michael F. Urbanski, Senior District Judge, presided. The district court case numbers were 3:22-cr-00210-MU-SCR-1 and 3:23-cr-00061-MU-DCK-1.
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 states that Gill failed to object to that decision before the district court. The Fourth Circuit received the case on briefs, with submission on August 14, 2026, and dispensed with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions were adequately presented and argument would not aid the decisional process.
R. Brent Walker of the Law Office of R. Brent Walker in Charlotte represented Gill. United States Attorney Russ Ferguson and Assistant United States Attorney Julia K. Wood of the Office of the United States Attorney in Charlotte represented the government.
The Court’s Holding
The unpublished per curiam opinion explained that when a defendant fails to preserve an issue by timely objecting in the district court, the Fourth Circuit generally reviews that issue for plain error only. It 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). The opinion described plain-error review as assessing whether there is an error, whether the error is clear or obvious, and whether the error affected the appellant’s substantial rights, citing Oceanic, 889 F.3d at 200.
In Gill’s circumstances, the court stated that he forfeited any argument related to his separate sentencing hearings and judgments because his opening brief did not even mention the plain-error standard, much less establish its requirements. A footnote added that Gill filed no reply brief despite the government’s correct identification of that standard in its response brief. The court cited Greer v. United States, 593 U.S. 503, 508, 512 (2021), for the propositions that unpreserved errors must be analyzed for plain error under Rule 52(b) and that the defendant bears the burden of establishing each requirement for plain-error relief. It also quoted United States v. McBride, 94 F.4th 1036, 1045 (10th Cir. 2024), concerning arguments effectively forfeited when a defendant neither preserves them below nor argues plain error on appeal.
The court’s operative disposition was expressly limited: “we decline to consider Gill’s unpreserved arguments on appeal, and we thus affirm the district court’s judgments.” It therefore did not publicly decide whether separate hearings and judgments were substantively permissible or whether any asserted error satisfied plain-error review. Both judgments were affirmed.
Key Takeaways
- The Fourth Circuit declined to consider Gill’s unpreserved challenges and affirmed both district court judgments.
- The procedural ruling rested on Gill’s failure to object below, his opening brief’s failure to mention or satisfy plain-error review, and his failure to file a reply after the government identified that standard.
- The opinion did not reach the merits of Gill’s request for grouped convictions, one judgment, and concurrent sentences.
- The opinion is unpublished and states that unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in the Fourth Circuit.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the practical appellate consequences of leaving a sentencing-procedure objection unraised in the district court and then omitting plain-error argument from the opening brief. Its reasoning is tied to Gill’s briefing and procedural posture; it should not be read as announcing that every similarly framed omission invariably produces the same result, or as a merits ruling approving separate sentencing hearings and judgments in all cases.
For attorneys, the opinion’s immediate significance is its application of preservation and plain-error principles to this appeal. The court resolved the case without oral argument and without evaluating the underlying sentencing objections.