US v. Travis Howell

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 25-4577

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

TRAVIS SENTELL HOWELL,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
Matthew James Maddox, District Judge. (1:24-cr-00367-MJM-1)

Submitted: July 23, 2026 Decided: July 27, 2026

Before WYNN and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Steven M. Klepper, KRAMON & GRAHAM, P.A., Baltimore, Maryland,
for Appellant. David Christian Bornstein, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

PER CURIAM:
Travis Sentell Howell pled guilty to an information charging him with conspiracy
to distribute and possess with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of a mixture and
substance containing a detectable amount of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. The
district court sentenced Howell to 108 months’ imprisonment, the sentence agreed upon by
the parties in the Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement. The
district court also imposed a $30,000 fine and a five-year term of supervised release.
On appeal, Howell’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386
U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning:
(1) whether the written criminal judgment includes conditions of supervised release that
were not pronounced at sentencing, in violation of United States v. Rogers, 961 F.3d 291
(4th Cir. 2020); and (2) whether trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance during plea
negotiations. Howell was advised of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but he
has not done so. The Government has declined to file a brief. We affirm.
“[U]nder Rogers, in order to sentence a defendant to a non-mandatory condition of
supervised release, the sentencing court must include that condition in its oral
pronouncement of a defendant’s sentence in open court.” United States v. Singletary,
984 F.3d 341, 345 (4th Cir. 2021). A Rogers error typically “involves a discretionary
condition in the written judgment that was not mentioned at all during sentencing.” United
States v. Mathis, 103 F.4th 193, 197 (4th Cir. 2024). “A more challenging version of this
error involves some degree of difference between what was pronounced orally and what
appears in the later written judgment.” Id. “In this situation, a material discrepancy

3

between a discretionary condition as pronounced and as detailed in a written judgment may
constitute Rogers error.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).
At sentencing, the district court pronounced that Howell “must submit to substance
abuse testing to determine if [he] ha[s] used a prohibited substance.” (J.A. 44).
*
The
written judgment included that condition but added that Howell “must not attempt to
obstruct or tamper with the testing methods.” (J.A. 4). We conclude that this addition is
not a Rogers error because a defendant who has obstructed or tampered with a drug test
has not “submitted” to the test.
As for Howell’s ineffective assistance claim, such claims “may be raised on direct
appeal only where the record conclusively establishes ineffective assistance.” United
States v. Perry, 92 F.4th 500, 517 (4th Cir. 2024) (internal quotation marks omitted). The
record before us does not conclusively establish that trial counsel rendered ineffective
assistance during plea negotiations. Accordingly, Howell’s “ineffective assistance claim
should be raised, if at all, in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion.” United States v. Kemp, 88 F.4th
539, 546 (4th Cir. 2023) (internal quotation marks omitted).
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have
found no meritorious grounds for appeal. We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment.
This court requires that counsel inform Howell, in writing, of the right to petition the
Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Howell requests that a petition
be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may

*
“J.A.” refers to the joint appendix filed in this appeal.

4

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