United States of America v. Patrick J. Fedak

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 23-4075
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
PATRICK J. FEDAK,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Greenville. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (4:20-cr-00115-FL-1)
Submitted: December 5, 2023 Decided: May 17, 2024
Before WILKINSON and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. Judge Quattlebaum filed a
concurring opinion.
ON BRIEF: G. Alan DuBois, Federal Public Defender, Andrew DeSimone, Assistant
Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Raleigh,
North Carolina, for Appellant. Michael F. Easley, Jr., United States Attorney, David A.
Bragdon, Assistant United States Attorney, Kristine L. Fritz, Assistant United States
Attorneys, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Patrick J. Fedak appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea to theft of
Government property, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 641. Fedak asserts that the district court
reversibly erred when it imposed discretionary conditions of supervised release in the
written judgment that it neither announced nor incorporated by reference at sentencing.
We review this claim de novo. United States v. Rogers, 961 F.3d 291, 296 (4th Cir. 2020).
After reviewing the record, we conclude that the district court erred by excluding the
discretionary conditions of supervised release when the sentence was announced. Id.
at 296, 299-301. We note that the court’s sole reference to “the standard conditions” was
insufficient to incorporate the standard conditions adopted by the district court in Standing
Order 21-20-5. The appropriate remedy for this error is to vacate the sentence and remand
for a full resentencing. United States v. Singletary, 984 F.3d 341, 346-47 & n.4
(4th Cir. 2021).
Accordingly, we vacate the sentence, 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

-- 2 of 3 --

3
QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judge, concurring:
While I join the per curiam opinion here, I think our required remedy of full
resentencing, while well-settled, is ill-advised. A better approach, in my view, would be a
limited remand as described in United States v. Kemp, 88 F.4th 539, 551-53 (4th Cir. 2023).

-- 3 of 3 --