United States of America v. Tyren Omarious Hargrove

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 23-4551
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
TYREN OMARIOUS HARGROVE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:22-cr-00173-FL-1)
Submitted: January 27, 2025 Decided: February 18, 2025
Before WILKINSON and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ON BRIEF: G. Alan DuBois, Federal Public Defender, Jennifer C. Leisten, 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, Lucy Partain Brown, Assistant United States
Attorney, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Tyren Omarious Hargrove pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute
heroin and fentanyl, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a). The district court sentenced
Hargrove to 188 months of imprisonment followed by three years of supervised release.
At the sentencing hearing, the court imposed several special conditions of supervised
release, including one requiring Hargrove submit to warrantless searches of his person, car,
home, and any data storage device. The written judgment, however, includes conditions
that Hargrove must submit to warrantless searches of these items and any property, house,
residence, vehicle, papers, computer, and effects. Hargrove appealed, arguing that this
discrepancy between the oral and written warrantless search condition required vacatur of
his sentence. We previously affirmed the district court’s judgment by unpublished opinion.
Hargrove has now filed a petition for rehearing, citing this court’s published opinion
in United States v. Bullis, 122 F.4th 107 (4th Cir. 2024). Specifically, after we affirmed
the judgment in Hargrove’s case, we determined in Bullis that the same discrepancy
between an oral and written warrantless search condition required vacatur of the sentence.
Id. at 117-18. In Bullis, the district court’s written judgment describing the special
conditions of supervised release covered “the defendant’s person and any property, house,
residence, vehicle, papers, computer, or other electronic communication or data storage
devices or media, and effects” but the oral pronouncement did not include “and effects.”
Id. at 111 (emphasis added).
In his petition for a rehearing, Hargrove argues that rehearing is warranted because
this court’s decision in his case directly conflicts with Bullis. We agree. The published

-- 2 of 3 --

3
decision in Bullis requires that the addition of the phrase “and effects” in a written
warrantless search condition improperly expands an oral pronouncement of a search
condition that did not include that phrase. That decision, therefore, conflicts with the prior
unpublished decision in this appeal.
Accordingly, we grant the petition for panel rehearing, deny en banc rehearing,
affirm Hargrove’s conviction, 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 in the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED IN PART,
VACATED IN PART,
AND REMANDED

-- 3 of 3 --