# United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604

Argued May 24 , 201 7 Decided June 19 , 201 7

Before

RICHARD A. POSNER , Circuit Judge

DANIEL A. MANION , Circuit Judge

MICHAEL S. KANNE , Circuit Judge

No. 16

- 1675

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appell ee ,

v
. CALVIN SANDERS , Defendant

- Appell ant

. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin

.
No. 14

– CR

– 00028
J.P. Stadtmueller , Judge

. O R D E R

The wire

- fraud statute imposes a maximum sentence of twenty years’ imprisonment, or thirty years’ imprisonment if the fraud “affects a financial institution.” 18 U.S.C. § 1343. On March 25, 2014, a grand jury returned a superseding indictment charging Calvin Sanders with the twenty

- year version of the offense. On June 25, 2014, Sanders pled gui lty to this crime under a plea agreement. The district court sentenced him to fifty

- two months’ imprisonment and five years’ supervised release. ( Sanders also pled guilty to committing aggravated identity theft in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1028A and receive d a sentence of twenty

- four months’ imprisonment to run consecutively to the fifty

- two

- month term ; this conviction and sentence are irrelevant to this appeal.) NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1No. 16

- 1675 Page 2 On appeal, the parties jointly moved to vacate the sentence and remand for a full resentencing u nder United States v. Thompson , 777 F.3d 368 (7th Cir. 2015) because the district court did not state its reasons for imposing certain supervised

- release conditions

. We granted that motion. See United States v. Sanders , No. 14

- 3741, Doc. 17 (7th Cir. June 3, 2015). And i n accordance with Thompson , the district court altered the supervised

- release conditions, but found no reason to reevaluate the terms of the original sentence. So the court imposed the same sentence as before. This sentence was illegal

. A crime imposing a maximum of twenty years’ imprisonment is a Class C felony. See 18 U.S.C. § 3559(a)(3). Because Sanders’s crime was a Class C felony, his maximum supervised

- release term cou ld not exceed three years. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(b)(2). We agree w ith the parties that the court’s imposition of a five

- year term constitute d plain error. See United States v. Goodwin , 717 F.3d 511, 518 (7th Cir. 2013) (describing the plain

- error standard). We accordingly reverse. The only remaini ng issue is the scope of remand: Sanders requests a full resentencing hearing, while the government seeks a remand limited to correcting the
error. We think t he government’s approach is more appropriate here. In United States v. Parker , we held that, when determining the scope of remand, if we can identify “a discrete, particular error that can be corrected on remand without the need for a redetermination of other issues, the district court is limited to correcting that error.” 101 F.3d 527, 528 (7th Cir. 1996). Here, the only tas k remaining is to modify the judgment to reflect a three

- year supervised

- release term

— the maximum term for supervised release

. The district judge has twice now imposed what he believed to be the maximum allowable supervised

- release term

. For these reasons, Sanders’s sentence is VACATED insofar as it calls for a five

- year supervised

- release term, and the case is REMANDED to the district court with instruction to modify the judgment to reflect a three

- year supervised

- release term.