## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it

N o. 10

- 1304 U NI T ED S TATE SOF A MERI CA, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. L AWRENCE T A Y L OR, D ef endant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Indian a, S outh Bend D ivisi on. No s. 07- CR-184 &08-C R- 100

—Rob ert L. Miller, Jr. , Judge

.
S UB MI TT ED S EP TE MBE R 23, 2010

— D ECI DE D D ECE MBE R 21, 2010

Befo re C UDAH Y, F LA UM, an d W OO D , C ircu it Judges . C UDAH Y, Cir cu i tJudg e . A pp el l ant Lawrence Tay l or appeal s fro m hi s s entence s forbankr obbe ryand f or vi ol ating the te rm s o fhi s s up er vi sed rele ase r el ati ng to an ear l i er bank robber y convi cti on. Because the dis tr i ct cour t e rr ed by faili ng to appreci ate i ts disc re ti on t o im p ose th e sent en ces eith er cons ecu tively or conc urre ntl y, we re m and fo r the c ourtto r econsi der that aspect ofthe sente nci ng packa ge.2 N o. 10

- 1304 I. F ac ts an d P roc ed u ral H is tory In 20 02 Law re nce Tayl orpl eaded gui l ty to bank robber y c harg es and w as sente nced to a t er m o fi ncarc er ati o n b y the U. S

. Di st r i ct Cou r t f o r the Di st r i cto fM i nneso ta. S om eti m e in 20 07 he was pla ced on s up er vi sed releas e, but w i thi n l ess than a y ear, o n A ugust 7, 20 08, he a tt em p ted to r ob a ba nk i n So uth Bend , Ind i ana. Tayl oro btained m oneyfro m the tel l er s, bu t the pl an w ent a w ryand Tayl orwas arreste d bef or e he coul d fl ee the s cene. The 2008 robber y re sul ted i n potenti al ter m s o f im pri sonm ent with re spect to tw o cri m in al c ases: Case num ber 07- CR

- 184, concernin g T ay lor’ s s u p er vis ed relea se ar i si ng fro m the 2002 bankr obbe ryco nvi cti on, and case num ber08

- CR

- 100, i n w hi ch the Gover nm ent c harg ed Tayl orwith the 20 08 bank robber y. Tayl orpl eaded gui l ty to the b ank r obbe ryo n M ay 7, 20 09 , a nd a s i ng l e se nt en cinghe ar i ngwas s etf o r b o ththe ban k robbery an d the su p er v is e d rel ease ca ses. Taylor’s proba ti on o ffi cerpre pared a “Sum m ary Repor t o fVi ol ati o ns ” i n c o nn e c t i o n wi th Ta y l o r ’ s s up e r v i s e d r e l eas e case , wh i ch sugg est ed an 18

- to 24

- m ont h se ntence. I n a ddi ti o n, the S um m ar yc i te d a poli cys ta te m en t wi thin the Uni t ed St a t e s S e nt e nc i ngGu i de l i ne s , U. S

. S

. G. § 7B1. 3( f ) , f orthe propos i ti on that a ny te rm o fi ncarc er at i o n f o r th e s u p e r v i s e d r e l e a s e v i o l a t i o n mu s tb e ma de conse cuti ve to the b ank r obbe ryse ntence. Tayl ordi d not obj ect to thi s a spect ofthe proba ti on o ffi cer ’ s r epor t. The dis tr i ct c ourthel d a se ntenci ng hea ring on Febr ua r y 1 , 2 01 0. By thi s tim e, Tayl o r a nd the Go ve r nm en tN o. 10

- 1304 3 ha d s ti pul at ed to a 1 2- m o nth sent en ce f o r v i o l at i ngthe ter m s o fhi s s up er vi sed r el eas e. There f or e, ar gu m en t at the s entencin g hea ring ce nter ed ar ound the appropr i ate sente nce f orTayl or ’ s ba nk r obbe ryco nvi cti on, wh i ch w a s t o be m uc h lengt hier. A fter discu ssing th e factors r el ev an t to s en te nc i ngpur su an t to 18 U. S

. C. § 3 55 3( a) , the di st r i ctc o ur t dete r m i ne d t o i m po se a 1 68

- m o nth s en te nc e f o r the 2 00 8 r o bb er y. Th en, wi thr es pec t to the s up e r v i s e d r e l e a s e s e nt e nc e , the c o ur ts t a t e d, I n additi on t o [ the b ank r obbe ryse ntence disc ussed i m m edi ate l y p rior] , ther e would be the tw el ve m onths that has to r un conse cuti ve, as I unders tand it, th e twe l ve months o n the s upe r vi se d r el ea se v i o l at i o n. ( Em phasi s a dd ed. ) Taylor d id noto bj ect to thi s s tat em ent, nordi d he askf orconcurre nt se ntences
. The di str i ct co ur t i m po se d c o ns ec ut i ve s en te nc es f o r Ta y l o r’s b an k r o bb ery c o nv i ct i o n a nd hi s su per vi se d r el ea se v i o l at i o n. T ay l ornot ed a t i m el y b ut defecti ve appeal fro m hi s s entence s. In part i cul ar, Tayl or ’ s no ti ce o fappeal ind icated only the ca se nu m b er forthe ba nk robbery case , bu tn o tthe n umb e r p e r t a i ningt o h i s s up e r v i s ed re l eas e ca se. The not i ce o fappealfurtheri nd i cate d t hat the a pp ealwas fro m a “j ud gm ent in a c ri m i nal cas e en tered i n th is a ction on Febru ary 1, 2010

. ” Ta ylor’ s ar gum ent b ef or e thi s co urt i s di re cted excl usi vel y t o the c onse cuti ve sequenci ng o fhi s s entence
.

I I . Ap pli cable Law Prel i m i nari l y t o sente nci ng quest i ons, thi s ca se prese nts an is su e o f ap p ella te j u ris d ict ion, w h ich th is c ou rtis4 N o. 10

- 1304 obliged to con side r sua s ponte, s e eJankyv. La keCnty. Convention & Vi s i t ors Bure au , 576 F.3d 356 , 359 (7th C ir. 20 09 ), eve n w h er e n eit h er p ar ty arg u es j u ris d ict ion is lac kin g, s e eInt ’ l U ni on of O pe r at i ng Eng’ rs , Lo ca l 15 0 v
. Wa rd, 56 3 F.3d 276, 28 2 ( 7th Ci r. 20 09)

. S peci fi cal l y, b ec au se T ay lor f aile d to inc lu d e t h e c as e n u m b er for h is supervi sed r el eas e ca se w hen he fi l ed hi s n oti ce o f app e a l, h i s a pp e a l wa s t e c hn i c a l l y n o nc o mpl i a ntwi th Fed. R. A pp . P. 3( c) , wh i ch pro vi des: ( 1) The not i ce o fappealm ust: ( A) specify the pa r tyo r pa r ti es t ak i ngthe a pp e a l

. . . ; [ a nd ] (B) d esigna te th e j ud gm en t, ord er , or part th er eo f be in g a p p ea led [.] C om p lian c e w ith F ed . R. A p p . P. 3(c ) is j u ris d ict ion al. See Sm ith v. B a rry, 5 0 2 U. S

. 2 4 4 , 2 4 8 , 1 1 2 S

. Ct

. 678, 116 L. Ed

. 2d 67 8 (1 99 2); All i e dSignal, Inc . v. B. F. G o odr i ch Co. , 18 3 F.3d 568 , 571 (7th C ir. 1999). A lth ou gh R u l e 3 ( c ) ru n s t o th e jur isd ict ion of th is c ou rt, th e Su p re m e C ou rt h as ex p lain ed th at it is “ libe ra lly const rued. ” Sm ith , 50 2 U.S. at 248. Thi s co urt has d escribed the ap p rop riate i nq uiry to be “w he th er suffi ci ent no ti ce was g i ven t o appri se the o therpart i es of the i ssues chal l enged. ” U ni t e d S t at e s v. Segal, 43 2 F
. 3d 767, 772 ( 7th Ci r. 20 05)

. In additi on, we have s ta te d t h at “an er r o r i n d esignat i ngthe j udg m en t wi l l no t r es ul t i n a l oss o fappeali f t h e int ent t o appeal fro m the conte ste d j ud g m en t m ayb e i nfer r ed f r o m the no ti ce a nd i fthe appell ee has no t be en m i sl ed by the defect. ” U nited State s v. D ow el l , 257 F.3d 694 , 698 (7th C ir. 2001).N o. 10

- 1304 5 M oving o n to the m er i ts, a sente nci ng co urt has di scr eti on t o m ake a sente nce co nsecuti ve orco ncurr en t. See 18 U. S

. C. § 3 58 4( a); U nite d State s v. C am pbel l , 61 7 F
. 3d 958, 961 (7th C ir. 2010). T his inc lud es situat ions w he re the se nt e nc e i s i mpo s e d in c o nn e c t i o n wi th a r e v o c a t i on of s u p er vis ed rele as e. See U nit ed States v. R odriguez-Q uintanil la , 442 F.3d 1 2 5 4 , 125 6 (1 0t h C ir. 20 06 ). A se n te n c in g c ou rte r r s w h en it h as d isc re tio n bu t fa ils to ex er c ise th at d isc re tio n . S e eUn i t e d S t a t e s v . Jac ks on , 546 F.3d 465, 472 (7th Cir. 2008). A s note d, the proba ti on offi cer ’ s Sum m ar y Reporto f V iola tio n s re fer re d to a p olic y s ta te m en t c on t a i n e d in the s entencing g uidel i nes, U
. S. S. G. § 7B1 .3(f), wh i ch provi des as f ol l ows: A ny te rm of i m pri sonm ent i m posed upon the re voca ti on o fprobati on o r supervi sed r el eas e sha ll be ord ered t o b e s e r ved c ons e cu t i ve l y to a ny s en te nc e o fi m pr i so nm ent that the defendant i s s er vi ng, wh ethero r not the s entence o fi m pri sonm ent b ei n g se rv ed re sul ted f ro m the conduct thati s the bas i s o fthe re voca ti on ofpro bati on o r supervi sed r el eas e. ( Em pha si s adde d. ) De spi te thi s f ac i all y mandat o r y l an guage , o ur pre cedents ar e unam bi guous that the pol i cy st at em en ts on su p er vis ed re lea se are n otm an d at or y. See U nited Sta tes v. Ha rvey, 2 3 2 F. 3d 585, 588 (7th Cir. 2000). Rather, we have e x p lained the i m porto fthe supervi sed re l eas e pol i cy sta tem ents as f ol l ows: Ra th ertha n e st ab l i sh i ngg ui del i ne s g o ve r ni ngthe r ev o ca ti on o fs upe r vi se d r el ea se , the S en te nc i ng6 N o. 10

- 1304 Com m i ssi on has o pted to prom ulg ate a ser i es of pol i cy sta tem ents, i ncl ud ing a Revo cati on Tabl e o f re com m en d ed sente nci ng r anges ti ed to the seve ri ty ofa defe nd ant’ s v i ol ati ons and cri m i nal hi sto rycat eg o r y . . . . Al th o ug h the se po l i cys ta te m en ts a r e no nbindi ng, the y a r e to b e g i ve n “ g r ea t wei g ht ” bythe sente nci ng j ud ge. U ni t e d S t at e s v. Sa l i nas , 365 F.3d 582 , 588 (7th C ir. 2004). I n s um , U. S

. S

. G. § 7 B1. 3( f ) r efl ec ts the U. S

. S enten cing Com m i ssi on’ s pol i cy f avo ring the co nsecuti ve sequencingo fa sente nce i m posed upon re voca ti on ofsuperv i sed r el eas e a nd the sente n c e forthe offense p re c ip ita tin g t h e re vo c at ion
. See U. S

. S

. G. § 7 B1

. 3 ( f ) , App lica tio n N ot e 4 ; U nited Sta tes v. G la sener, 981 F. 2d 973, 97 5- 76 ( 8 th Ci r . 1 9 9 2 )

. T he Co mm i s s i o n’ s s up e r v i s e d r el ease p oli cy sta tem ents ar e g ener al l y e nti tl ed to “g re at w eig h t.” W e h av e a ls o e m p h as ize d , ho w ev er , th at w h ile th e po l i cys ta te m en ts “ ar e an ‘el ementi n [ th e se ntenci ng j ud ge’ s] exer ci se of disc re ti on, ’ they ar e not a substi tute f orthatdi scr eti on. ” U ni t e d St at e s v. M cCl anah an , 136 F. 3d 1146 , 114 9 ( 7th Ci r. 19 98) ( quoti ng U nited Sta tes v. H il l , 48 F. 3d 228, 231 (7th Cir. 1995)). I fa defe nd ant f ai l s to ra i se an o bj ecti on a t s entencing, thi s co urt w i l l r evi ew fo r pla i n er ro r, as ki ng wh ether “( 1) e r r o r o c c u r r e d ; ( 2 ) th e e r r o r wa s p l a i n ; a n d ( 3) t he er ro r affecte d the d efend ant’ s s ubstanti alr i ghts. ” U nited Sta tes v. P itre, 504 F.3d 65 7, 66 1 (7 th C ir. 20 07 ). Th is r emai ns t r ue whenthe e r r o r a l l eged i s th atthe s en tenci ng co urt did notappreci ate the advi sor y nature of th e s en te n c in g g u id elin es . Se eU nited St at e s v. Wi l s on ,N o. 10

- 1304 7 48 1 F .3d 47 5, 48 4 (7 th C ir. 20 07 ); U nited Sta t e s v. Sa nt i ago , 428 F.3d 699, 705 (7th Cir. 2005).

II I. A n alysis A . Ap pell at e J uri sdict i on T ay lor’ s n ot ice of ap p ea l w as su fficie n t t o b rin g h is case withi n our juri sdic ti on. Tayl or ’ s intent to appeal f ro m bo th co m ponents o fhi s s entenc i ng packa ge m ay f ai r l y b e i nfer r ed f r o m hi s no ti ce o fa ppea l, de spi te the f ac t th at he on l y i nc l ude d o ne c as e number

. Bo ths en tence s a ro se f ro m the sam e s et off ac ts , a n d Tayl orwas se n te n ced i n both case s a t the sa m e hea ring. H i s no ti ce st at ed th athe a p p ealed fr o m “ th e j udg m en t i n a c rim in al c as e e n te re d in t h is a c tio n on Fe b ru ar y 1 , 201 0,” wh i c h c o u l d r e fe r to ei th e r s e n t e n c e . T h i s f a l l s c o mf ortab l y wi th i n the r ea l m o ft ec hni ca l, no n- m i sl ea di ng noncom pli ance with the ru l es, with r espectto wh i ch an a pp e a l s ho ul d b e a l l o we d. I n additi on, wh i l e w e a re co gni zant that parti es cannot st i pul at e to jur i sdi ct i o n, the po si ti o n o fthe g o ve r nm en t i s r e l e v a n t b e c a u s e o u r p r e c e d e n t s d i c t a t e th a twe consi der whether the app el l ee has be en m i sl ed. H er e, the Gove rnm ent has m ade no ar gum ent that i t was m i sl ed or o th er w i se prej ud i ced by Tayl or ’ s f ai l ure to sp ec ify b ot h ca se n u m b er s o n h is n ot ice of ap p ea l. I ns tea d , the G overn m en t recom m en d s tha t this cou rt c re d it on e o f T ay lor’ s a rg u m en ts an d rem an d th e c as e. In vi ew o f th e l ibe r al co ns truct i o n o f F ed. R. App. P. 3 ( c) , the m i no r na tu r e o fTa y l o r ’ s m i st ak e, and the abs en ce o fa ny8 N o. 10

- 1304

See, e . g. , Harvey, 23 2 F .3d at 58 8 ; H ill, 48 F. 3d at 231. 1 a r g u me n tth a tth e G o v e r n me n th a s b e e n mi s l ed, we consi der that the not i ce o fappealwas suffi ci ent.

B . S e nt e nc i ng W e a gr ee w i th Tayl orand the Gover nm ent that th e di st r i ctc o ur t er r ed byt r ea tingthe p oli cys ta te m en t r eco m m en dat i o n in U. S

. S

. G. § 7 B1. 3( f ) a s m an dat i ng con secu tive sent e nc ing for T aylor’s 2008 ban k robbery case and hi s s up er vi sed r el eas e ca se. A s T ay lorurg es an d the G overn m en t con ced es, th e sen ten cing cou rt’s r efer en ce t o “ th e tw el ve months tha t ha s to r un c o ns ec uti ve, as Iundersta nd i t” sh ow s without a m bi gui ty that the s entencing co urt did notap p re c iate i ts disc re ti on t o m ake Tayl or ’ s s entence s ei therco nsecuti ve orco ncurr ent. N ext, we m ust dete rm i ne the appropriat e re m edy f or th is s entencing er ro r. A l though the super vi sed r el eas e po l i c y s t a t e me n t s we r e a d v i s o r y we l l b e f o r e th e s e nte n c in g g u id elin es th e m se lve s w er e m ad e a d vis or y in U nited Sta tes v. B o o k er, 543 U

. S. 220, 267, 125 S. C t. 73 8, 16 0 L . E d . 2d 62 1 (2 0 05 ), th e d ist ric t c ou rt ’s e rro r h er e is 1 anal ogo us to a case i n w hi ch the d istri ct c ourtf ai l ed to appreci ate the advi sor y nature ofthe sente nci ng g uidel i ne s. I n ca se s o f th at k i nd an d i n whi ch th e d efenda nt did notr ai se the i ssue at sente nci ng, the re m edy has been a l im ited rem an d f or the d is t r ict cou rt to det erm i ne wh etheri t would h ave i m posed the sam e s entence kn ow in g t h at th e g u id elin es are n otm an d at or y. SeeN o. 10

- 1304 9

Tay lor points out that each of his se ntence s w as m ade consec

2 utive to the other, and that as a practi cal m att er, it o n ly takes one conse cuti ve se ntence to m ake the packag e c onsec u tiv e. H e i s app arent ly c oncerned thati fthe dist rictcourt revis es the cons ec ut i ve natur e ofon l y the s uper vi s ed r el ea s e s en tenc e, he will st il l be stuck with a cons ecuti ve se ntence package. On re m and the d istrictc our ts houl d gi ve ful l e ffec tt o o ur dec i s i on by reco nside ri ng the c ons ec ut i ve natur e ofboth o f T ay lor’s s en ten ces. U ni t e d S t at e s v. Pal adi no , 401 F.3d 471 , 484- 8 5 (7th Cir. 20 05 ); San t i ago , 428 F.3d at70 5-0 6. Tayl ordoes n ot askf orm or e than thi s. H i s r epl y b ri ef sta tes , [ T] he g o ve r nm en t r eque st s th atthi s co ur t affi r m the indi vi duals en te nc es o f1 68 months f o r the r o bbe ry and 12 m onths f orthe vi ol ati on o fsuperv i sed r el eas e. H owever, i n l i ght o fthe erro r, the gov er nm ent a l so suggests thatthe sente nci ng packa ge be r em anded wi thi ns truct i o ns f o r the di st r i ctc o ur t to r ee xa m i ne whether [ th ey ] s ho ul d b e co nc ur r en t, pa r ti al l y c o ncurr ent, or consecuti ve. A pp el l ate co unself or M r. Tayl or d oes noto bj ect to the g ove rnm ent’ s pro p os ed so lu tio n to th e p r o b lem s p re se n te d in t h is ap p ea l. Such a lim ited rem and i s withi n ourautho ri ty und er28 U .S.C . § 21 06 , s e eU ni t e d S t at e s v. Young, 66 F. 3d 830, 83 5 ( 7 th C ir. 19 95 ), i s c on sis te n t w ith ou r p rior p ra c tic e, see U nited S ta tes v . M a ca ri, 45 3 F
. 3d 92 6, 9 42 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 6) , a nd is urged by the Go vern m en t and acce p ted by Ta ylor. 2 Tayl ori s enti tl ed to have the dist ri ct c ourtexer ci se i ts10 N o. 10

- 1304 disc re ti on a s t o conse c u tive o r concurr ent t re atm ent, b u t th is do es n ot d et ra c t from th e “gr ea t w eig h t ” o r d inari l y a ccor ded to superv i sed r el eas e pol i cy sta tem ents. W e e xpress no o pini on a s t o the pr opero utcom e. W e A FFIRM Tayl or ’ s s entence s but ord era L IMI TED R EMA ND f o r pr o ce eding s co ns i st en t wi ththi s o pi ni o n.

12- 21- 10