### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS FORTHEFIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 10018 UN I TE D S TA TE S OF AM ERI CA P l ai n t i f f - A pp el l ee v. K EN N ET H LEE W I LLI S D efen d a n t - A p p ell a n t

A p p ea lf

rom the U n i tedS tates D i stri ct C ou rt f o rt he N o r t he r n Di s t r i c to f Te xa s , D all as D ivi s i o n B e fo r e J O L LY , S M IT H , a n dO W E N , C ir c u it J u d g e s . E . G R A D YJO L LY , C i rcui tJu dg e: In 199 8, t h e governm en tchargedK en n et h L ee W i l l i s w i t h t w o coun t s of bei n g a fel on i n possess i on of a f i rearm . T h e tw o cou n t s w ere prem i sed on W i l l i s’ s s i m u lta n eou s posses si on of t w o f i rearm s and w ere, t h eref ore, m u ltip lic ito u s inv io la tio n o f th e F ifth A m e n d m e n t’s p r o h ib itio n a g a in s t d o u b le j e o pa r dy . W i l l i s , ho w e ve r , di d no to bj e c tt o t he i ndi c t m e nt . H e w as t r i e d a nd c o nvi c t e d o n b o t h c o unt s , a nd was s e nt e nc e d t o t w o t e r m s o f i m pr i s o nm e nta nd tw o te r m s o f s u p e rv is e dre le a s e , a ll to ru nco n c u r r e n tly . Foll o w i ng hi s c o nvi c t i o ns , W i l l i s f i l e d a n uns uc c e s s f

uldir e c ta ppe ala nd l a ter tw o un su cces sful m oti on s to va ca te j u d gm en t u n d er 2 8 U . S . C . § 22 5 5 . In each of t h ose proceedi n gs , W i l l i s fai l ed to rai se t h e m u l t i pl i cit y of hi s c on vi ct i on s. United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Ma rch 24, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 10018

2 Ther e i s no q ue s t i on – i nde e d iti s c o nc e de d b y t he g o ve r nm e nt–b utt hatt he s e c o n du n d e r ly in gco n v ic tio n w a s m u ltip lic ito u s a n dt h e r e fo r e u n c o n s tit u tio n a l. S ee, e. g. , Un i t ed Stat es v. B err y , 977 F . 2d915 , 918
- 20 ( 5t h Ci r . 1 99 2) (i ndi c t m e nt c har gi ng t hr e e c o unt s o f unl awf ulpo s s e s s i o n o f

af i r e ar m , p rem i se d o n t he s i m u lta n e o u s p o s s e s s io n o f th r e e fir e a r m s , w a s m u ltip lic ito u s ). H a dW illis r a i s e d t h e e r r o r , h is s e c o n ds e n te n c e w o u ldh a v e b e e n v a c a te d . I d. at920 (m u ltip l i c i t o u s co n v ic tio n s w ill n o t b e a ffir m e do n th e g r o u n dth a t t h e ir se nt enc es r un c onc urr ent l y and def endantw ho w aives oppo r t uni t y t o c hal l enge m u ltip lic ito u s co n v ic tio n m a yn o n e th e le s s ch a lle n g e m u ltip lic ito u s s e n te n c e ). W i l l i s served h i s sentences concu rrently an d w as rel eased i n 200 7. A f t er h e vi ol ated t h e cond i t i on s of hi s r el ease, hi s t w o t erm s of sup ervi sed rel ease w ere r evo ked. At hi s r evo c at i on h ear i ng, W i l l i s, forthe f i r stti m e i n any pr oc ee di ng, poi n t ed out t h at th e t w o un derl yi n g convic t i on s w ere m u l t i pl i cit ou s and asked t h at th e sentenci n g j u dg e i m pose a n ew senten ce for onl y on e revokedt erm of sup ervi sed rel ease. Th e sentenci n g j u dg e i n st eadi m poseda new sentence of i nc ar c e r at i o n o f

2 4 m o nt hs o n e ac h t e r m o f s upe rvi s e d r e l e as e , t hi s t i m e t o r un c o n s e c u tiv e ly . W i l l i s now appeal s t he s ec ond of t he t w o r evo c at i on s ent enc es as u n r e a s o n a b le , o n th e g r o u n dth a t itis m u ltip lic ito u s . T h e g o ve r nm e nti s c o r r e c tt hat , a l t ho ught he r e i s no q ue s t i o n t he u n derl yi n g convic t ion s w ere m u l t i pl i cit ou s, W i l l i s m ay n otchal l en ge t h ose u n d erlyingcon victi on s i n this ap p ea l . Iti s byn ow w ell -estab l i sh edtha t a d efen d a n t m a y n ot u se th e a p p ea lof arev oca ti on of su p erv i sed releas e to c h a lle n g e a n u n d e r ly in gco n v ic tio n o ro r ig in a l s e n te n c e . Uni t e d S t at e s v. Hi n son , 4 2 9 F .3d 1 1 4 , 1 1 6 (5 th C ir. 2 0 0 5 ) (m a yn o t c h a ll e n g e or igin a l se n te n ce ); Uni t e d St at e s v. Mo o dy , 277 F. 3d 719, 721 ( 5t h C i r . 2001) ( m ay notc hal l enge in d ic tm e n t o rd r u gq u a n tit yu s e da t s e n te n c in g); Uni t e d St at e s v . Fr anc i s c hi ne , 5 1 2 F .2 d8 2 7 , 8 2 8 (5 th C ir . 1 9 7 5 ) (m a yn o t c h a lle n g e u n d e r ly in gco n v ic tio n ).N o. 08- 10018

Cas e l awacknowle dgesth at asentencemayb e multiplicitou s init ownright. See 1 Berr y , 97 7 F .2d at 9 20 (defen dantwho waives opp ortunityto challenge multiplicitous convictionmaynonetheles s ch allenge multip licitou s s entence). 3 H e r e , ho w e ve r , W i l l i s do e s no tc hall e nge t he va l i dit y o f hi s t w o und e r l yi ng convic t i on s. I n deed , he h a s al readyservedt h e t w o ori gi n alt erm s of i m pr i s o nm e nt . H i s a ppe aldo e s no ts e e k t o d i s t urb e i t he rt he m ul t i pl i c i t o us unde r l yi ng c o nvi c t i o n o rt he m u l t i pl i c i t o us o r i gi nals e nt e nc e . I ns t e ad , he cha l l en ges t h e reasona blenesso f th e s e c o n dre v o c a tio n s e n te n c e . “ [A] ppe l l at e r e vi ew of s e nt e nc i ng de c i s i o ns i s l i m i t e d t o de t e r m i ni ng w h eth er th eyare ‘rea son a b l e.’” G allv. Un i t ed S t ate s , 55 2 U . S . — , 12 8 S . C t. 586 , 594 ( 200 7) . Th i s c o u rt h a s yett o deci de w h et h er t o subj ectrevocat i on sentences t o t h e “ u n reasona bl e ” o r th e “ pl ai n l y u n reasona bl e” st an da rd of r e v ie w . S ee Un i t ed S t ate s v. McKi n n ey , 5 2 0 F .3 d4 2 5 , 4 2 8 ( 5 th C ir . 2 0 0 8 ). W e ne e d notr e s o lvet hati s s ue he r e b e c aus e , f o rt he r e as o n we e xp l ai n, t he s e c o nd r e v o c a tio n s e n te n c e inth is c a s e fa ils e v e n th e m o r e e x a c tin g“p la in ly u n r e a s o n a b le ” s ta n d a r do f r e v ie w . T h e r e i s n o q u e s tio n b u t t h a t t h e s e c o n dre v o c a tio n s e n te n c e is m u l t i p l i c i t o u s i n i t s o wn r i g h t . W e d o n o t h o l d , h o we v e r , t h a tt he s e c o nd 1 revocat i on sentence i s not a l egal sentence. T h at r evocati on sentence st em s f rom on e of t he t w o o r i gi nals ent enc es ; t hator i gi nals ent enc e, w hi c h W i l l i s has al r eady se rved, r em ai n s u n di st urbe d and t her ef or e l egal . I f

t he o r i gi nal sentence i s l egal, t h en t h e revocat i on sentence, w h i ch dep en ds u pon i t , i s al so l egal . O ur o pi ni on doe s notques t i on t he r evo c at i on s ent enc e’ s l egali t y. W e q u e stio n in ste a dth e m ere f acto f thesec on d revocati on sentence, w h i ch w o u ldr e q u ir e th a t W illis s e rv e tw o re v o c a tio n s e n te n c e s , co n se cu tive ly , as a pe nalt y f

o rw hata l lpa r t i e s no w a gr e e w as o nl y o ne o f fe ns e . The s e c o nd r e vo c at i o n sentenc e w o ul d the r e f o r e ha vet he pr ac t i c ale f fe c to f i nc ar c e r at i ng W i l l i s f or an addi t i onal t w ent y- f our m ont hs. W e e spe c i al l y not e thatt he o r i gi nalN o. 08- 10018

4 s e nt e nc e , i nc l udi ng t he t e r m o f s upe rvi s e d r e l e as e , w as i m po s e d t o r un c o n c u r r e n tly . T h e fa c t o f its m u ltip li c i t y , a lth o u g h le g a l, is, u n d e ra ll c ir c u m s ta n c e s p r e s e n t, p la in lyu n r e a s o n a b le . W e v i ew ourhol di ng i n t hi s c as e t o b e anar r ow one . W e ho l d o nl y t hat W illis ’ s re v o c a tio n s e n te n c e , w h ic h w o u ldre q u i r e th a t h e a c tu a llys e rv e , i . e. , c o n s e c u tiv e lys e rv e , tw o o rm o r e s e n te n c e s a s ap e n a lty fo ras in g le o ffe n s e , is pl ai n l y u n reasona bl e. W e l i m i tt h e preceden t i alval u e of our holdi n g t o cases presenti n g i n di st i n gu i sha bl e fact s i n al lm ater i alres pects . F i n a l l y, W i l l i s also claim s th e d i stri ct co u rt v i olatedh i s ri gh t t o a l l ocu te b e fo r e h i s s e n te n c e w a s p r o n o u n c e d . S eeF ED . R. C RIM . P . 3 2 (i)(4 )(A)(ii) ( defenda n tm u stha ve opp o r t unity t os pe ak bef ore s en t en ce i s i m posed ) . B ecau se W i l l i s di d notobj ec tatt he r evo c at i on hear i ng, w e r evi ew f orpl ai n er r oronly. Uni t e d St at e s v . Rey na , 3 58 F. 3d3 44 , 3 50 ( 5t h Ci r . 2 00 4) ( e n b anc) . The revocat i on hea ri n g t ran scr i pt r eveals t h at i n fact t h e di st ri ct court t w i ce i n vi t ed W i l l i s t o s pe ak . I ni t i all y, W i l l i s t o l d the c o ur the ha d n ot h i n g t o s ay ; l at e r , he s a ido n lyth a t t h e a lle g a tio n s a g a in s t h im w e r e n o t t r u e . T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t d id n otden y W i l l i s hi s r i gh tt o al l ocute; t h eref ore, w e f

i n d n o pl ai n err or. A ccor di n gl y, f

or th e reasons st ated herei n , W i l l i s’ s f i rstrevocation s e n t e n c e i s A F F I RMED. Hi s s e c o n dr e v o c a t i o n s e n t e n c e i s VAC AT ED .