United States v. Rhonda Notgrass, 4th Cir.

United States v. Rhonda Notgrass, 4th Cir.  (filed 2/27/25)—Reminder that Terms and Conditions of Probation May Not Be Included in the Scope of an Appellate Waiver.  Also, More Pandemic Fraud . . . 

In a case that underscores the consequences of pandemic-related fraud, the Fourth Circuit recently upheld the sentences of Rhonda and Robert Notgrass, a West Virginia couple who unlawfully obtained benefits from the Pandemic Unemployment Assistance program. Their story, a blend of financial distress, deception, and legal maneuvering, serves as a cautionary tale about the perils of exploiting government relief programs.

The Fraud

In the summer of 2020, as the COVID-19 pandemic wreaked havoc on employment across the country, Robert Notgrass, a former minister at the Lubeck Church of Christ, found himself unemployed—not due to pandemic-related layoffs but for unrelated reasons. Instead of seeking legitimate avenues for financial support, Robert and his wife, Rhonda, saw an opportunity to game the system. They submitted fraudulent claims for pandemic unemployment benefits, falsely stating that their job losses were directly caused by COVID-19. Rhonda also fabricated an employment history at the church, with Robert vouching for her claims.

For a time, their deceit paid off, with the government approving their applications and issuing payments. However, this was short-lived. A report of fraud prompted an investigation by the Department of Labor, leading to federal charges against the couple.

Appeal of Their Probation Conditions

The Notgrasses pleaded guilty to misdemeanor charges in exchange for lenient sentencing—five years of probation instead of jail time. As part of their plea deal, they waived their right to appeal most aspects of their sentence, but they later contested four specific probation conditions:

1. Travel Restrictions – They were required to obtain permission from their probation officer before leaving their judicial district.
2. Weapons Ban – A prohibition on possessing dangerous weapons, which they argued infringed on their constitutional rights.
3. Employment Registration – A requirement to register with an unemployment agency to secure job opportunities.
4. Mental Health Supervision (Robert’s Case) – Robert was ordered to participate in a supervised mental health program, which he argued should remain under his personal provider’s control.

The Court Affirmed the Probation Conditions

The Fourth Circuit ruled against the Notgrasses, affirming all probation conditions as reasonable. The court found that their appeal waiver did not cover probation conditions, allowing them to challenge those terms. However, their arguments failed on the merits. The court determined that:

1. The travel restriction was standard and ensured that probation officers could effectively monitor the couple.
2. The weapons prohibition was a necessary safeguard, with allowances for self-defense items like pepper spray.
3. Registering with an employment agency was a logical condition given the financial motivation behind their crime, and 
4. Supervised mental health treatment for Robert was justified and did not interfere with his existing care.

Takeaways

The Notgrasses’ case serves as a reminder that pandemic fraud will not go unpunished. While they avoided prison time, their legal troubles did not end with their guilty pleas. The court’s ruling reinforced that probation conditions, even when contested, must align with sentencing guidelines and public safety interests. For anyone considering defrauding government relief programs, this case stands as a warning: even leniency comes with strings attached.