No Plain Error Where Court Cites Need for Continued Psychiatric Medication as Basis for Sentence

US v. Melaku: In 2010, Melaku went on a spree in which he “fired multiple rounds . . . at various military-related sites” in DC’s Virginia suburbs (he was arrested at Arlington National Cemetery in possession of, among other things, “ammonium nitrate that he intended to leave or use on veterans’ grave markers”). He pleaded guilty to three charges, including a §924(c) count, in a binding plea agreement with a sentence of 25 years. After a competency hearing showed that Melaku was schizophrenic, but competent, the district court imposed that sentence.

After Davis, the Fourth Circuit vacated the §924(c) conviction and remanded for resentencing. After hearing further testimony on Melaku’s mental health and his treatment regimen, the district court ultimately imposed a sentence of 240 months in prison. In doing so, the district court stressed that it was “very important that you stay adherent to your medication regimen.” Melaku did not object.

On appeal, the Fourth Circuit affirmed Melaku’s sentence. Primarily, the court held that Melaku failed to show that any potential Tapia error was “plain.” That was because there was no clear guidance on whether concerns about maintaining a treatment regiment for a chronic condition was “rehabilitation,” nor could Melaku clearly show an error in that being part of the district court’s considerations, along with the need to protect the public. The court concluded that “forfeiture has consequences” and suggested the result might have been different absent plain error review.