Case ID: f-appx_269/html/0382-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM: \n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee v. Kenneth Lee BUGG, Defendant—Appellant.
    No. 07-10774
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    March 6, 2008.
    Richard Bratton Roper, III, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Douglas A. Morris, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before STEWART, OWEN and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Kenneth Lee Bugg appeals his sentence of fourteen months’ imprisonment, followed by thirty-four months of supervised release, because the period of supervised release exceeds the maximum permissible term by one day. In its Unopposed Motion to Modify the Judgment and Dismiss the Appeal, the government concedes that the district court’s sentence exceeds the maximum term of supervised release permitted under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(h). The government asks that we modify the district court judgment by reducing Bugg’s supervised release term by one day and then dismiss Bugg’s appeal; Bugg agrees that such a disposition would satisfactorily resolve his appeal.

Despite the parties’ agreement, we are mindful that determining the proper sentence for a criminal defendant is a discretionary matter reserved to the district court. See United States v. Levario-Quiroz, 161 F.3d 903, 908-09 (5th Cir.1998). Because the term of supervised release imposed in this case exceeds the statutory maximum, we VACATE Bugg’s supervised release sentence and REMAND for re-sentencing in accordance with 18 U.S.C. § 3583(h).

In light of our decision to vacate and remand, the government’s Unopposed Motion to Modify the Judgment and Dismiss the Appeal is DENIED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.