PUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-4578

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

DANIEL LAMONT MATHIS, a/k/a Gunna, a/k/a Mooch, a/k/a D-Man,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Charlottesville. Michael F. Urbanski, Chief District Judge. (3:14-cr-00016-MFU-JCH-1)

Argued: January 25, 2024 Decided: May 29, 2024

Before AGEE, RICHARDSON, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.

Vacated and remanded by published opinion. Judge Quattlebaum wrote the opinion, in which Judge Agee and Judge Richardson joined.

ARGUED: Erin Margaret Trodden, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellant. Laura Taylor, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Juval O. Scott, Federal Public Defender, Geremy Kamens, Interim Federal Public Defender, Christine Madeleine Lee, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Monica D. Cliatt, First Assistant Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellant. Christopher R. Kavanaugh, United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee. USCA4 Appeal: 21-4578 Doc: 59 Filed: 05/29/2024 Pg: 2 of 12

QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judge:

This appeal installs another episode in our circuit’s Rogers-Singletary series. At

Daniel Lamont Mathis’ sentencing hearing, the district court orally pronounced that he

would “be subject to warrantless search and seizure to ensure compliance with these

conditions.” J.A. 118. Later, the district court issued the written judgment with a special

condition providing that Mathis “shall submit his or her person, property, house, residence,

vehicle, papers, [computers as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 1030(e)(1), other electronic

communications or data storage devices or media], or office, to a search conducted by a

United States probation officer.” J.A. 126. It also required Mathis to “warn any other

occupants that the premises may be subject to searches pursuant to this condition.” J.A.

126.

On appeal, Mathis argues that the additional language in the written judgment

constitutes error under United States v. Rogers, 961 F.3d 291 (4th Cir. 2020), and United

States v. Singletary (Singletary I), 984 F.3d 341 (4th Cir. 2021). 1

We agree with Mathis that the requirement that he “warn any other occupants that

the premises may be subject to searches pursuant to this condition,” J.A. 126, is

inconsistent with the orally pronounced condition. And, although both parties ask us to

strike some or all of the condition containing the offending language, our precedent permits

1 At first, Mathis’ counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), concluding that counsel had not identified any meritorious grounds for appeal, and that Mathis was likely procedurally barred from raising issues that he could have raised during his previous appeal. After reviewing the record under Anders, we directed the parties to provide supplemental briefing addressing, in part, whether there is error under Rogers and Singletary. 2 USCA4 Appeal: 21-4578 Doc: 59 Filed: 05/29/2024 Pg: 3 of 12

only one remedy. Rogers, Singletary I and t