[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 16-11753

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 8:07-cr-00205-RAL-EAJ-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

 versus

GREGORY LAMONT RANDALL, 

 Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

________________________

(December 7, 2016)

Before JULIE CARNES, JILL PRYOR, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Case: 16-11753 Date Filed: 12/07/2016 Page: 1 of 4 
2

Gregory Randall appeals his 60-month imprisonment sentence, imposed

upon revocation of supervised release. On appeal, Randall argues, and the 

government concedes, that the district court erred because it imposed a sentence 

that was above the statutory maximum. Randall was originally convicted of being 

a felon in possession of a firearm, and he received an enhanced sentence under the 

Armed Career Criminal Act (“ACCA”). However, he filed a habeas corpus 

petition that successfully challenged his ACCA enhancement, which resulted in his 

re-sentencing and changed his underlying conviction from a Class A felony to a 

Class C felony. Therefore, the district court was limited to a maximum revocation 

sentence of two years’ imprisonment. He argues on appeal that the U.S. Probation 

Office, and by extension, the district court, mistakenly relied on the presentence 

investigation report from his original sentencing, which showed that his offense 

was a Class A felony, to state that the statutory maximum upon revocation was five

years. 

We review for plain error an argument that is raised for the first time on 

appeal. United States v. Pantle, 637 F.3d 1172, 1174 (11th Cir. 2011). Under 

plain error review, we may correct an error where: (1) an error occurred; (2) the 

error was plain; (3) the error affects substantial rights; and (4) the error seriously 

affected the fairness of the judicial proceedings. United States v. Gresham, 325 

F.3d 1262, 1265 (11th Cir. 2003). 

Case: 16-11753 Date Filed: 12/07/2016 Page: 2 of 4 
3

An individual who is convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm,

and who is not subject to an ACCA-enhanced sentence, is subject to a maximum 

penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment. See 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(2), (e)(1); see also 18 

U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). A crime punishable by up to 10 years’ imprisonment is a Class 

C felony. 18 U.S.C. § 3559(a)(3). 

The permissible terms of imprisonment following a revocation of supervised 

release are set out in 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e). See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e). Under 

§ 3583(e), the district court may revoke a term of supervised release and require 

that the defendant serve in prison all or part of the term of supervised release if the 

district court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant violated a 

condition of supervised release, except that: 

a defendant whose term is revoked under this paragraph may not be 

required to serve on any such revocation more than 5 years in prison if 

the offense that resulted in the term of supervised release is a Class A 

felony, more than 3 years in prison if such offense is a class B felony, 

more than 2 years in prison if such offense is a class C or D felony, or 

more than one year in any other case.

Id. § 3853(e)(3). A sentence that exceeds the statutory maximum is plain error. 

United States v. Eldick, 393 F.3d 1354, 1354 n.1 (11th Cir. 2004). 

The district court plainly erred when it sentenced Randall to a 60-month 

imprisonment term for violating the conditions of his supervised release. Randall’s 

underlying offense, after re-sentencing, was a Class C felony. 18 U.S.C. 

§3559(a)(3); 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Therefore, the maximum imprisonment term 

Case: 16-11753 Date Filed: 12/07/2016 Page: 3 of 4 
4

the district court was authorized to impose for Randall’s supervised release 

violation was two years. 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3). Moreover, because the court 

imposed an illegal imprisonment term, the district court’s plain error seriously 

affected Randall’s substantial rights and the fairness of his sentencing proceedings. 

See Gresham, 325 F.3d at 1265. Accordingly, we vacate Randall’s sentence and 

remand for resentencing.

VACATED AND REMANDED.

Case: 16-11753 Date Filed: 12/07/2016 Page: 4 of 4