United States v. Gregory Largent

── United States v. Gregory Largent ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Date: April 22, 2026 Category: General USCA4 Appeal: 24-4530 Doc: 25 Filed: 04/22/2026 Pg: 1 of 5 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 24-4530 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. GREGORY LARGENT, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. Gina M. Groh, District Judge. (3:08-cr-00009-GMG-RWT-1) Submitted: April 1, 2026 Decided: April 22, 2026 Before WYNN and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. ON BRIEF: Nicholas J. Compton, Assistant Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellant. Randolph Bernard, Acting United States Attorney, Kimberley D. Crockett, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-4530 Doc: 25 Filed: 04/22/2026 Pg: 2 of 5 PER CURIAM: Gregory Largent appeals the district court’s judgment revoking his supervised release and sentencing him to 18 months’ imprisonment followed by a lifetime of supervised release. ∗ Largent contends that the district court erred in modifying his terms of supervised release without holding a separate hearing, in violation of Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.1(c) and his due process rights. He also asserts that his revocation sentence is procedurally and substantively unreasonable. We affirm. Largent first argues that the district court erred in modifying the terms of his supervised release by imposing a stricter condition of supervised release at his supervised release revocation hearing. The modified condition required him to obtain permission from the district court, rather than the probation office, to have contact with minors. Largent contends that modifying this condition required notice and a separate hearing. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.1(c)(1), (2). Because Largent did not object during the hearing when the condition was modified or to the subsequent order, we review for plain error. To succeed on plain error review, a defendant “must establish that (1) an error occurred; (2) the error was plain; and (3) the error affected his substantial rights.” United States v. Combs, 36 F.4th 502, 505 (4th Cir. 2022) (citation modified). “Even if all three factors are satisfied, ∗ Although Largent has been released from incarceration, his appeal is not moot because he is still serving his lifetime term of supervised release. See United States v. Ketter, 908 F.3d 61, 66 (4th Cir. 2018) (holding that defendant’s appeal of term of incarceration is not rendered moot by his release when he is still serving supervised release term). 2 USCA4 Appeal: 24-4530 Doc: 25 Filed: 04/22/2026 Pg: 3 of 5 we exercise our discretion to correct the error only if it seriously affects the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Id. (citation modified). Even had the district court erred, we conclude that the modification of the supervised release condition did not affect Largent’s substantial rights. The district court modified the condition during a hearing in w