PUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-4377

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

RHONDA NOTGRASS,

Defendant – Appellant.

No. 23-4378

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

ROBERT NOTGRASS,

Defendant – Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Irene C. Berger, District Judge. (2:23-cr-00016-1; 2:23-cr-00017-1)

Argued: September 24, 2024 Decided: February 27, 2025

Before KING and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and William L. OSTEEN, Jr., United States District Judge for the Middle District of North Carolina, sitting by designation. USCA4 Appeal: 23-4377 Doc: 57 Filed: 02/27/2025 Pg: 2 of 20

Affirmed by published opinion. Judge Richardson wrote the opinion, in which Judge King and Judge Osteen joined.

ARGUED: Jonathan D. Byrne, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellants. Alexander Allen Redmon, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Wesley P. Page, Federal Public Defender, Emily L. Szopinski, Assistant Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Charleston, West Virginia; Natalie Atkinson, THOMAS COMBS & SPANN PLLC, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellants. William S. Thompson, United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.

2 USCA4 Appeal: 23-4377 Doc: 57 Filed: 02/27/2025 Pg: 3 of 20

RICHARDSON, Circuit Judge:

Rhonda and Robert Notgrass stole from American taxpayers when they fraudulently

drew benefits from the Pandemic Unemployment Assistance program. Though it charged

them with felonies, the Government let the Notgrasses plead guilty to misdemeanors, and

the district court sentenced them to probation.

On appeal, the Notgrasses challenge four conditions set for their probation. But as

part of their plea deal, the Notgrasses agreed to waive their right to appeal certain aspects

of their sentence. So before tackling the merits, we face a threshold question: whether they

can bring such a challenge at all. They can. The Notgrasses’ appellate waiver covers only

any sentence of imprisonment, fine, and term of supervised relief—not conditions of

probation. So we reach the merits of their challenge.

On the merits, the Notgrasses argue that four probation conditions were both

procedurally and substantively unreasonable. We reject both arguments. The district court

adequately explained the conditions at sentencing in light of their objections, and the

conditions were reasonably related to the § 3553(a) sentencing factors. We discern no

abuse of discretion, and so we affirm the district court’s sentence.

I. Background

The summer of 2020 was a trying time. Everyone responded differently as the

COVID pandemic swept the nation: Some turned to baking; some turned to brewing; still

others turned to crime. Robert Notgrass was a minister at the Lubeck Church of Christ in

West Virginia. Rhonda Notgrass, his wife, was a congregant at the church.

3 USCA4 Appeal: 23-4377 Doc: 57

Click Here to Read the rest of this document