United States of America v. Karmen Grimes

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 25-4249
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
KARMEN GRIMES,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at
Martinsburg. Gina M. Groh, District Judge. (3:22-cr-00034-GMG-RWT-2)
Submitted: January 14, 2026 Decided: February 6, 2026
Before WYNN, HARRIS, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.
Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ON BRIEF: Kristen M. Leddy, Assistant Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE
FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellant. Lara Kay
Omps-Botteicher, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Martinsburg, West
Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 4 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Karmen Grimes pled guilty pursuant to a plea agreement to conspiracy to possess
with intent to distribute cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C), 846, and
the district court sentenced her in September 2023 to five years’ probation. The probation
officer later petitioned the district court to revoke Grimes’ probation term, alleging she had
violated the conditions of her probation. In April 2025, Grimes admitted violating the
conditions of her probation, and the district court revoked her probation term and
resentenced her to 23 months’ imprisonment and 3 years’ supervised release.
On appeal from the April 2025 judgment, Grimes’ counsel filed a brief pursuant to
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there are no meritorious grounds
for appeal, but questioning whether the district court erred in imposing the prison and
supervised release terms.* The Government moved to dismiss the appeal as barred by the
appeal waiver in Grimes’ plea agreement. After reviewing the record, we ordered the
parties to submit supplemental briefs addressing whether the district court erred under
United States v. Rogers, 961 F.3d 291 (4th Cir. 2020). Grimes’ counsel filed a
supplemental brief arguing that the district court violated Rogers. The Government
responded by moving to reverse and remand for resentencing based on the district court’s
error under Rogers, and Grimes does not oppose this motion. We agree that the district
court committed a Rogers error. Accordingly, we deny the Government’s motion to
* Although offered the opportunity to do so, Grimes did not file a pro se
supplemental brief.

-- 2 of 4 --

3
dismiss the appeal, deny in part and grant in part the Government’s motion to reverse and
remand, vacate Grimes’ sentence, and remand for resentencing.
Although the district court announced some of the conditions of Grimes’ three-year
term of supervised release, it did not announce the eighth and ninth of the nine discretionary
special conditions that appear in the written judgment. Thus, the district violated the rule
that “all non-mandatory conditions of supervised release must be announced at a
defendant’s sentencing hearing.” Id. at 296. This is reversible error under de novo review,
id. at 295-96, and the appeal waiver in Grimes’ plea agreement does not bar our review of
this claim, United States v. Singletary, 984 F.3d 342, 344-45 (4th Cir. 2021).
When a district court fails to announce discretionary conditions of supervised
release that are later included in the written judgment, we must vacate the defendant’s
sentence in its entirety and remand for resentencing. See id. at 346 & n.4. Thus, we have
no occasion to consider the challenges to Grimes’ sentence raised in the Anders brief or
whether such challenges are barred by the appeal waiver.
Therefore, we deny the Government’s motion to dismiss the appeal, deny the
Government’s motion to reverse and remand insofar as it seeks reversal, grant the
Government’s motion to reverse and remand insofar as it seeks a remand for resentencing,
vacate Grimes’ sentence pursuant to Rogers and Singletary, and remand for resentencing.
This court requires that counsel inform Grimes, in writing, of the right to petition the
Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Grimes requests that a petition
be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may

-- 3 of 4 --

4
move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state
that a copy thereof was served on Grimes.
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

-- 4 of 4 --