United States v. Charles Gilliam, Jr., 20-4150

Charles Gilliam Jr. pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute cocaine base and heroin (21 U.S.C. §§ 841(b)(1)(A), 846).
The district court imposed 210 months imprisonment and 5 years supervised release, orally announcing only a few special conditions.
The written judgment, however, included statutory "mandatory" conditions under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d) and 13 "standard" (discretionary) supervised-release conditions drawn from the Sentencing Guidelines/form AO245B that were not announced at sentencing.
Appellate counsel filed an Anders brief; the panel ordered supplemental briefing addressing whether Rogers affected consistency between the oral sentence and the written judgment.
The Fourth Circuit affirmed the conviction, found a Rule 11 error (failure to advise of the 10-year mandatory minimum) but held it did not affect substantial rights, vacated the sentence, and remanded for full resentencing because discretionary conditions were not announced; the government’s motion for a limited remand was denied.

Issue	Gilliam's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Whether failure to advise of the 10-year mandatory minimum under Rule 11 was plain error affecting the plea	District court failed to advise of mandatory minimum; error warrants relief	Error occurred but was harmless; conviction should stand	Error was plain but did not affect substantial rights; plea upheld
Whether inclusion of mandatory supervised-release conditions in the written judgment but not orally pronounced creates a conflict	Inclusion in judgment conflicts with oral sentence	Mandatory conditions need not be orally pronounced and may appear in judgment	Mandatory conditions may be included in the judgment without reversible error
Whether unannounced standard (discretionary) supervised-release conditions in the written judgment render the sentence inconsistent and require vacatur/remand	Standard conditions were not announced; sentence is inconsistent and must be vacated	Government conceded error but sought limited remand to excise conditions	Under Rogers and Singletary, discretionary conditions not announced require vacatur and full resentencing; limited remand denied

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (procedure for counsel to brief frivolous appeals)
United States v. Rogers, 961 F.3d 291 (4th Cir. 2020) (district courts must announce non-mandatory supervised-release conditions at sentencing)
United States v. Singletary, 984 F.3d 341 (4th Cir. 2021) (remedy for unannounced discretionary conditions is vacatur and full resentencing)
United States v. Lockhart, 947 F.3d 187 (4th Cir. 2020) (en banc) (plain-error standard for Rule 11 review)
United States v. Davila, 569 U.S. 597 (2013) (prejudice in plea context requires reasonable probability the defendant would not have pleaded guilty absent the error)
United States v. Massenburg, 564 F.3d 337 (4th Cir. 2009) (analysis of whether Rule 11 error affected substantial rights)
United States v. Good, 25 F.3d 218 (4th Cir. 1994) (Rule 11 requires advising defendant of mandatory minimum sentence)