FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEV EN T HC IRC U IT APRIL27, 2007 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 06- 12886 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D o c k e tN o . 0 1 - 0 1 0 4 7 - C R - K MM U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f - A p p e lle e , v ersu s M O N I Q U E R O B E R T S , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe S outhe rn D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( A p r i l27, 2007) B efo re D U B IN A , C A RN E S an d B A R K E T T , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: M oni que R obe r t s appe a l s the 12- m onth t e rm of s upe rvi s e d r e l e a s e f

ol l ow i ng he r20- m onth pr i s on t e r m tha tw a s i m pos e d upon r e voc a t i on of he rpr i or supervi se d rel ea se . S he ar gu es thatan addi t i on al t erm of supervi se d rel ea se un der2

th e ap p lic ab le v e r s io n o f th e s u p e rv is e d r e le a s e s ta tu te , 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 8 3 ( h ) , is i m perm i ss i bl e bec ause she has al re ady s erved the st atut ory m axi m um al l ow ed unde r18 U . S . C . § 3583( e ) ( 3) . W e a gr e e , r e ve r s i ng the s e nt e nc e i m pos e d by the di s tr i c tc our ta nd r e m a ndi ng. I. F ol l ow i ng an entryof pl eaof gu i l ty t o i m po rt i ng coca i ne i nt o the U ni t ed S t a t e s on oraboutN ove m be r7, 2001, i n vi ol a t i on of 21 U . S . C . § 952( a ) , the di s tr i c tc our ts e nt e nc e d R obe r t s t o thi r ty - s e ve n m onths ’ i m pr i s onm e nt , t o be fo l l o w ed b y tw o years o f su p erv i sed rel ease. A ft er b ei n g rel eased fro m cu st o d y, R ob ert s vi ol at ed the t erm s of hersupervi se d rel ea se and w as ul t i m at el y r ea rr es t ed o n D e c e m b e r3 0 , 2 0 0 4 . A r e voc a t i on he a r i ng w a s he l d on J a nua ry 25, 2005, w hi c h r e s ul t e d i n the r e voc a t i on of

R obe r t s ’ s t e r m of

s upe rvi s e d r e l e a s e , a nd a c us t odi a l s e nt e nc e of

“ t i m e s erved, ” w i tho utspec i fy i ng ho w m uch t i m e thi s i nv ol ved. T he di stri ctcourt a ls o im p o s e d a n o th e rte r m o f s u p e rv is e d r e le a s e o f

th r e e y e a r s ( “R o b e r ts I ” ) . A ft erbei ng re l ea se d from cust od y, R ob ert s a gai n v i ol at ed the t erm s of her s upe r vi s e d r e l e a s e . T he di s tr i c tc our te nt e r e d a nothe ror de ron N ove m be r21, 2005 r e v o k in g R o b e r ts ’s n e w th r e e - y e a rte rm o f s u p e rv is e d r e le a s e , s e n te n c in g h e rtoAlthough therec ord is not clear on this iss ue, both par

ties agree d at sentenc ing, a nd on 1 appeal, that Roberts serve d four months’ imprisonment. 3 thr e e m onths i n pr i s on, a nd i m pos i ng a nothe rt e rm of s upe rvi s e d r e l e a s e of 1 tw e n ty - f o u rm o n th s ( “R o b e r ts I I ” ) . A f t e rbe i ng r e l e a s e d f

r om i m pr i s onm e nt , R obe r t s a ga i n vi ol a t e d the t e rm s of her s up ervi se d rel ea se . A tthe re vo ca t i on hear i ng , bo th p art i es re qu es t ed a s ent ence o f tw e n ty m o n th s ’ im p r is o n m e n t. T h e d is tr ic t c o u rt im p o s e d a s e n te n c e o f tw e n ty m o n th s ’ im p r is o n m e n t, to b e f o llo w e d b y tw e lv e m o n th s o f s u p e rv is e d r e le a s e . D ef ense coun se l obj ec t ed, ar gu i ng thatthe di stri ctcourtcoul d n oti m po se an a ddi t i ona l t e r m of

s upe r vi s e d r e l e a s e , be c a us e R obe r t s ’ s a ggr e ga t e t e rm s of i m pr i s onm e nta f

t e rthe r e voc a t i ons of

he rs upe rvi s e d r e l e a s e t e rm s a l r e a dy m e tthe s t a tut ory m a xi m um t e r m of i nc a r c e r a t i on pr e s c r i be d by 18 U . S . C . § 3583. T he d i stri ctco u rto v erru l ed th e o b j ect i o n an d sen t en ced R o b ert s t o tw en ty m o n th s’ i m pr i s onm e nt , t o be f

ol l ow e d by tw e l ve m onths of s upe rvi s e d r e l e a s e . R obe r t s now ap p eal s. II. W e r e vi e w the l e ga l i ty of a s e nt e nc e a nd i s s ue s of s t a tut ory c ons truc t i on de novo. U ni t e d S t a t e s v. P l a , 345 F . 3d 1312, 1313 ( 11th C i r . 2003) ; U ni t e d S t a t e s v. C ob i a, 41 F . 3d 14 73 , 14 75 (11th C i r. 19 95 ).B e c a us ethereis n o c ongre ssi on al intent indic atingoth erwise , th esu pervise d re le a se 2 statute— [18 U.S.C . § 3583]—i n eff ect on November 7, 2001, when the underlying of fenseof Count One of the indictment wa s committed, governs the penalties that may be imposed on Roberts. J ohnson v. United States, 529 U.S. 694, 701-02 (2000) ( “[P] ostrevocation penalties relate to the orig inal offense.” ) . United States v. Wil liams, 425 F.3d 987, 988 n.1 (11th Cir. 2005). Section 952(a) of Title 21 of the United States Code, the offense for which Roberts wa s 3 convicted, w as a c lass C felony at the time of Rober

ts’s conviction. See 18 U.S.C. § 3559(a) (3) (N ov . 1 3, 19 98 - A

pril 2 9, 20 03 vers ion) ( dis cus singtha t a c la ss Cfe lony

is o nethat ha s a maxi mum term of imprisonment of more than ten year s, but less than twenty-five year s); 21 U.S.C. § 960(b)(3) (Februar y 18, 2000 - November 1, 2002 version) (notingthat the maximum term of imprisonment for violating21 U.S.C. § 952(a) wa s 20 year s’ imprisonment). 4 T he vers i on of 18 U . S . C . § 3 58 3(e) (3) i n eff ec tatthe t i m e of the offens e, 2 prov i ded thata c ou rtm ayno tre qu i re a def endantw ho se supervi se d rel ea se t erm w as rev o k ed t o serv e m o re th an tw o years i n p ri so n i f th e o ffen se w as a cl ass C fe l on y. 18 U . S . C . § 3 58 3(e) (3) ( O ct ob er26 , 20 01 t o N ov em ber 1, 20 02 ) ( am ended

3 2003) . F ur the r , the tw o- y e a rm a xi m um t e rm of i m pr i s onm e ntpr e s c r i be d by § 3583( e ) ( 3) i s t o appl y i n the a ggr e ga t e . W i l l i a m s , 425 F . 3d a t989. W ith r e f e r e n c e to s u p e r v is e d r e le a s e , th e f o llo w in g v e r s io n o f

1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 8 3 ( h ) w a s in e f

f e c t a t th e tim e th e u n d e r ly in g o f f e n s e w a s c o m m itte d : W h e n a te r m o f

s u p e r v is e d r e le a s e is r e v o k e d a n d th e d e f e n d a n t is r e qui r e d t o s e r ve a t e r m of i m pr i s onm e nttha ti s l e s s tha n the m axi m um t erm of i m pri sonm entautho ri ze d u nd ersubsec t i on (e )( 3), the c our tm a y i nc l ude a r e qui r e m e nttha tthe de f e nda ntbe pl a c e d on a te r m o f s u p e r v is e d r e le a s e a f

te rim p r is o n m e n t. 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 8 3 ( h ) ( 1 9 9 5 ) ( a m e n d e d 2 0 0 3 ) ( e m p h a s is a d d e d ) . W e m u std et erm i n e w h eth er th i s v ersi o n o f 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 5 8 3 (h ) au th o ri zes a5

courtt o i m po se an addi t i on al t erm of supervi se d rel ea se w hen the defendant , as he r e , ha s s e r ve d the m a xi m um t e rm of i m pr i s onm e nt . “ [ T ] he f i r s tc a non of s t a tut ory c ons truc t i on” i s “ tha tc our t s gi ve e f f e c tt o the pl a i n a nd una m bi guous la n g u a g e o f

a s ta tu te .” O w e n s v . S a m k le A u to . I n c ., 4 2 5 F .3 d 1 3 1 8 , 1 3 2 1 ( 1 1 th C i r . 2005) . “ A s i n a ny c a s e of s t a tut ory c ons truc t i on, oura na l y s i s be gi ns w i th the l angu age of the st atut e. A nd w here the st atut ory l angu age provi des acl ea r a nsw er , it e n d s th e r e a s w e ll.” I d . ( q u o ta tio n m a rk s a n d c ita tio n s o m itte d ) . T he st atut e perm i t s acourtt o i m po se an addi t i on al t erm of supervi se d r e le a s e o n ly “w h e n a te r m o f s u p e rv is e d r e le a s e is r e v o k e d a n d th e d e f e n d a n t is r e qui r e d t o s e r ve a t e r m of i m pr i s onm e nttha ti s l e s s tha n the m a xi m um t e rm of im p r is o n m e n t a u th o r iz e d u n d e rs u b s e c tio n ( e ) ( 3 ) .” 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 8 3 ( h ) ( e m p h a s is a d d e d ) . Th e u s e o f

th e w o r d “ a n d ” i n th i s s t a tu t o ry c o n t e x ti s u n a mb i g u o u s . A m. B a nke r s I ns . G r oup v. U ni t e d S t a t e s , 408 F . 3d 1328, 1332 ( 11th C i r . 2005) ( “[ U ]n le s s th e c o n te x t d ic ta te s o th e rw is e , th e w o r d ‘a n d ’ is p r e s u m e d to b e u s e d in i t s or di na ry s e ns e , tha ti s , c onj unc t i ve l y . ” ) . T hus , a c c or di ng t o a pl a i n r e a di ng of thi s s t atut e, tw o i nd ependentpron gs m ustbe sa t i sf i ed before an add i t i on al s upe r vi s e d r e l e a s e t e r m m a y be i m pos e d unde rthi s s e c t i on. F i r s t , the pr i ort e rm of s upe r vi s e d r e l e a s e m us tbe r e voke d. S e c ond, the de f e nda ntm us tnotha ve s e rve d a t e r m of i m pr i s onm e nte qua l t o orgr e a t e rtha n the m a xi m um t e rm of i m pr i s onm e nt6

a uthor i z e d unde r§ 3583( e ) ( 3) . S e e a l s o U ni t e d S t a t e s v. M e r c e d, 263 F . 3d 34, 37 ( 2nd C i r . 2001) ( pe r s ua s i ve a uthor i ty ) ; U ni t e d S t a t e s v. B r i ngs P l e nty , 188 F . 3d 1051, 1053 ( 8th C i r . 1999) ( pe r s ua s i ve a uthor i ty ) ; U ni t e d S t a t e s v. B e a l s , 87 F . 3d 854, 857- 58 ( 7th C i r . 1996) ( pe r s ua s i ve a uthor i ty ) , ove rrul e d on othe rgr ounds by U n ite d S ta te s v . W ith e r s , 1 2 8 F .3 d 1 1 6 7 , 1 1 7 2 ( 7 th C ir . 1 9 9 7 ) . I n thi s c a s e , w hi l e the f

i r s tr e qui r e m e ntw a s s a t i s f i e d, the s e c ond r e qui r e m e nt w a s not . R obe r t s w i l l ha ve s e r ve d a n a ggr e ga t e of a tl e a s ttw e nty - f

ourm onths ( or 2 y e a r s ) of

pos t - r e voc a t i on c us t ody i n pr i s on, the m a xi m um t e rm of i nc a r c e r a t i on pr e s c r i be d by § 3583( e ) ( 3) f ora c l a s s C f

e l ony , a tthe t i m e of

the c om m e nc e m e nt o f th e p r e s e n ts u p e r v i s e d r e l e a s e t e rm. B e c a us e R obe r t s w i l l ha ve s e rve d the s t a tut ory m a xi m um t e rm of im p r is o n m e n t a u th o r iz e d b y § 3 5 8 3 ( e ) ( 3 ) o n c e s h e c o m p le te s th e c u rr e n t tw e n ty m onth pr i s on s e nt e nc e , the pl a i n l a ngua ge of 18 U . S . C . § 3583( h) pr ohi bi t e d the d i s tr i c tc o u r tf

r o m i m p o s i n g th e p r e s e n tt e rm o f s u p e rv i s e d r e l e a s e . T h e r e f o r e , we concl ud e thatthe di stri ctcourt ’ s l at es ti m po si t i on of supervi se d rel ea se const i tut ed r e ve r s i bl e e rr or , a nd i t s or de rt o thi s e f f e c ti s va c a t e d. RE V E RS E D A ND RE MAND E D.