[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 16-14558

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 2:07-cr-14028-KMM-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

 versus

RANDALL WAYNE MILNER, 

 Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

________________________

(June 5, 2017)

Before TJOFLAT, WILLIAM PRYOR and BLACK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Case: 16-14558 Date Filed: 06/05/2017 Page: 1 of 3 
2

Randall Milner appeals from his sentence of eight months’ imprisonment 

followed by a life term of supervised release, imposed after committing four 

violations of the terms of his original supervised release. On appeal, Milner 

contends the district court erred by failing to subtract his revocation prison 

sentence from the supervised release term, as required by 18 U.S.C. § 3583(h). 

After review,1 we affirm.

Milner violated his term of supervised release, so the district court was 

authorized to revoke his supervised release and impose a prison term, and to 

impose a subsequent additional term of supervised release. See 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3583(e)(3), (h). However, a new supervised release term cannot be longer than 

“the term of supervised release authorized by statute for the offense that resulted in 

the original term of supervised release, less any term of imprisonment that was 

imposed upon revocation of supervised release.” 18 U.S.C. § 3583(h). In this 

case, the maximum term authorized by statute is life, which Milner concedes. See

21 U.S.C. § 846; 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B)(viii). Milner contends the district court 

sentenced him to eight months’ imprisonment but failed to subtract that term from 

his term of supervised release as required by the plain language of the statute. 

 1 We “review[] de novo the legality of a sentence, including a sentence imposed pursuant 

to revocation of a term of supervised release.” United States v. Aimufa, 122 F.3d 1376, 1378 

(11th Cir. 1997). However, where, as here, a defendant fails to object to an error before the 

district court, we review for plain error. United States v. Sosa, 777 F.3d 1279, 1294 (11th Cir. 

2015).

Case: 16-14558 Date Filed: 06/05/2017 Page: 2 of 3 
3

We find, however, that the district court did not plainly err. Milner’s 

lifespan is indefinite, so subtracting his eight-month prison sentence is a practical 

impossibility. Our sister Circuits agree. “[I]t is highly unlikely that Congress 

expected the subtraction concept to be applied to a lifetime term of supervised 

release.” United States v. Cassesse, 685 F.3d 186, 191 (2d Cir. 2012). And 

“[b]ecause it is impossible to predict the precise length of any individual’s life, a 

sentence of ‘life less two years’ has only conceptual—not practical—meaning.” 

United States v. Rausch, 638 F.3d 1296, 1303 (10th Cir. 2011) overruled on other 

grounds by United States v. Bustamante-Conchas, 850 F.3d 1130 (10th Cir. 2017); 

see also United States v. Crowder, 738 F.3d 1103, 1104 (9th Cir. 2013). Milner’s 

proposed literal reading of § 3583(h) is untenable on these facts, and he marshals 

no authority to support it.

The district court did not err. Accordingly, we affirm.

AFFIRMED.

Case: 16-14558 Date Filed: 06/05/2017 Page: 3 of 3