## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 96-1403

___________ United States of America, * * Plaintiff-Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Western District of Missouri. Bobbie Lee Lawson, * * UNPUBLISHED Defendant-Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: November 19, 1996 Filed: June 20, 1997

___________ Before WOLLMAN, MAGILL, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM.
Pursuant to a written plea agreeme nt, Bobbie Lee Lawson pleaded guilty to one count of being a felon in possession of a firear m, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). T he district court sentenced him to 180 months (15 years) of imprisonment and three years of supervised release. This appeal followe d, in which Lawson argues the district court comm

itted reversible error under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 during the tak ing of his guilty plea. We agree and therefore vacate Lawson's conviction and sentence.-2-

Before accepting a guilty plea, a district court must advise the defendant of "the
ma ndatory minimum penalty provided by law, if any, and the maximum possibl e penalty provided by law, including the effect of any special parole or s upervised release term. " Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1) (emphas is added). In the instant case, because of his prior convictions, Law son was subject to a maximum term of life imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. § 924(e). Lawson's offense under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) consequently became a Class A felony for which he could receive up to five yea rs of supervised release. See 18 U.S.C. § 3559(a)(1) (unless otherwise provided, offense is Class A felony i f
max imum term of imprisonment is life imprisonment); 18 U.S.C. § 3583(b)(1 ) (aut horizing not more than 5 years of supervised release for Class A felony); Unite d Sta tes v. Carey , 898 F.2d 642, 646 (8th Cir. 1990) (noting § 924(e) authorize s maximum of life imprisonment). Upon any violation of his supervised release, Lawson could be required to serve up to five additional years of imprisonment. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) (3) (authorizing the court to revoke supervised release and "require th e defendant to serve in prison all or part of the term of supervised release authorized by statute for the offense that resulted in such term of supervised release," which for a Class A felony is five years, "without credit for time previously served on postrelease supervision."). Lawson points to s everal alleged Rule 11 errors by the district court at the plea hearing. Although the court correctly advised Lawson that the m inimum penalty for his offense was not less than 15 years of imprisonment, the court did not advise him of the maximum penalty of life impr isonment. In addition, the district court advised Lawson he was subject to "supervised release of not less than three years," while at the same time neglecting to inform

him that he was subject to a maximum supervised release of five years. Finally, the court told Lawson that he could receive "additional jail time" if he violat ed the conditions of his supervised release, but did not inform him that a violation of supervi sed release could lead to an additional five years of imprisonment. The superseding indictment and the plea agreement also erroneously understated the-3-

term o f imprisonment, the supervised release term, and the effect of a violation of his supervised release.

Laws on's presentence report correctly noted that the offense was a Class A felony, and that Lawson was subject to from three to five years of supervised release. Lawson protested at his sentencing hearing that, based upon the supersedin g indictment , he had believed he was pleading guilty to a Class C rather than a Class A felony. The court responded, erroneously, that Lawson had been advised during th e change-of-plea hearing as to the maximum penalty. We agree that the district court erred in advising Lawson only that the penalty for his offense was not less than 15 years of imprisonment; however, b ecause the actual sentence imposed was 180 months (15 years), we conclude the error was harmless

. See Fed. R. C rim. P. 11(h); United States v. Raineri , 42 F.3d 36, 41 (1st Cir. 1994 ) (finding harmless error where the district court told defendant the maximum sentence
was les s than the law actually allowed, but the sentence imposed was no more tha n defendant was informed it could be), cert. denied , 115 S. Ct. 2286 (1995). Similarly, we conclude the court's admonition that Lawson would be subject to supervised release of no t less than three years provides no basis for reversal, because the district cour t actually sentenced Lawson to only three years of supervised release. The district court also erred in failing specific ally to inform Lawson of the effect of any violation of his supervised release . The court's mention of "additional jail time"
was not sufficient to put Lawson on notice at the time of the plea that he might serve five extra years in prison. See United States v. Osment , 13 F.3d 1240, 1242-43 (8th Cir. 19 94) (explaining that Rule 11 requires explanation of the consequences of a violation of supervised release). In Lawson's worst case scenerio, a ssuming he violated his supervised release on the last day of his 3-year supervised release term and wa s revoked, Lawson

could conceivably serve 15 years of imprisonment, 2 years and 364-4-

days of supervised release , and an additional 3 years of imprisonment for violation of his supervised release. United States v. St. John , 92 F.3d 761 (8th Cir. 1996) (holding that, in this circuit, the maximum period of time a defendant's freedom can be restrained upon revoca tion of supervised release cannot exceed the length of the term o f supervised release imposed as part of defendant's original s entence). Because this total exceeds the amount of time Lawson could reasonably have un derstood he was exposed to fromthe district court's admonitions, the superseding indictment, and the ple a agreement, we cannot deem the error harmless on this direct appeal. Id. at 1243. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the district court, vacate Lawson' s convict ionand sentence, and remand this matter to the district court for furthe r proceedings. A true copy.
Attest:
CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.