N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
UNITED STATES OF AM ERIC A, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. JAM ES HER

M OSILLO, AKA B o ne s, De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 14-50211

D.C . No. 2:08-c r-00713-DSF-42 M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia Da le S. Fisc he r, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d Oc tobe r 21, 2015 * * Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : TR OTT, KLEINFELD, a nd C ALLAHAN, C irc uit Judge s. Jam e s He rm osillo (“ He rm osillo” ) ple a de d guilty to C ount Oneof a

n indic tm e nt c ha

rging him with involvem e nt in a

c o n spira c y

to distribute

and posse ss with intent to distribute

a c ontrolle d substa

n c e , a viola tion of 21 U.S.C . §§ 846 a nd 

# FIL ED N OV 13 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).841(a )(1), a

C la ss B fe lony
. On a

ppe a l, he c ha lle nge s the 15-y e ar te rm of supe rvise d re le a se im

pose d by the distric t c ourt, c onte nding tha t the te rm e xc e e ds the s tat utory m a xim um . W e have jurisdic tion unde r 18 U.S.C . § 3472(a) and 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a

nd we a ffirm
. Although Herm osillo e xe c ute d a writte n ple a a gre e m e nt wa iving his right to a ppe a l his se nte nc e , inc l uding a ny te rm of supe rvise d re le a se , he wa ive d tha t right only to thee xte nt tha

t the te rm fa lls within the

sta tutory m axim um . B e c a use He rm o sillo c la i m s tha

t the im pose d te rm e xc e e ds the m axim um a uthoriz e d by sta tute , he is not pre c lude d from bringing this a

ppe a l
. 1 He rm osillo obje c ts to theim position of a

15-y e ar te rm

of supe rvise d re le a se , a sse rting tha

t 18 U.S.C . § 3583(b) ope rate s to se t a five -y e ar c e i ling unde r 21 U.S.C . § 841(b)(1)(B ) sinc e § 841(b)(1)(B )’ s own te rm s do not spe c i fy a m axim um te rm . B e c a

use he a lle g e s this e rror for the first tim e on a ppe a l, we re vie w it for pla i n e rror. Unite d State

s v . Danie ls , 760 F.3d 920, 922 (9th C ir. 2014). Se c tion 3583(b), the

ge ne ra l se nte nc ing sta

tute , a uthoriz e s a

m axim um five
y e ar te rm of supe rvise d re le a se for a C la ss A or C la ss B fe lony , “ [e ] xc e p t a s othe rwise provide d .” 18 U.S.C . § 3583(b)(1). Se c tion 841(b)(1)(B )(viii), the

1 In any

e ve nt, “ [a ] n

a ppe a l wa ive r will not a

pply if . . . the se nte nc e viola te s the la w.” Unite d State

s v . W atson , 582 F.3d 974, 987 (9th C ir. 2009) (quoting Unite d State

s v . Bible r , 495 F.3d 621, 624 (9th C ir. 2007)).

2pe na lty provision under whic h He rm osillo wa s se nte nc e d, pe na liz e s spe c ific drug offe nse s a nd provide s in re le va

nt pa rt: “ Notwithsta

nding se c tion 3583 of Title 18, any se nte nc e im

pose d unde r this subpa

ra gra ph sha ll . . . inc lude a

te rm of supe rvise d re le a se of at le a st 4 y e ars . . . .” The sta tute doe s not spe c ify

a m a xim um te rm of supe rvise d re le a se , im ply i ng tha

t a life te rm is pe rm issible
. In an a n a logous c onte xt in Unite d State s v . Garc ia, 112 F.3d 395 (9th C ir. 1997), we ana ly z e d the re lationship betwe e n § 3583(b) a

nd 21 U.S.C . § 841(b)(1)(C ). W e he ld tha t § 841(b)(1)(C )’ s spe c ific supe rvise d re le a se te rm , a s e xpre s se d by

the U.S. Se nte nc ing Guide line s (“ Se nte nc ing Guide line s” ), trum pe d § 3583(b)’ s ge ne ra l m a xim

um o f thre e y e ars. W e a

pplie d § 841’ s te rm

be c a u se the sta tute satisfie d t

he “ e x c e pt a s othe rwise provide d ” e xc e ption of § 3583(b). Garc ia , 112 F.3d a

t 398. La te r, in Unite d State

s v . Barragan , 263 F.3d 919, 925–26 (9th C ir. 2001), a nd Unite d State

s v . Ross , 338 F.3d 1054, 1057 (9th C ir. 2003), we he ld tha

t a m a xim um life te rm of supe rvise d re le a se wa s pe rm issible unde r § 841(b)(1)(C ), whic h se ts a m inim

um te rm but no m axim

um te rm . Garc ia , Barragan , a

nd Ross c om

pe l the c onc lusion tha

t, like§ 841(b)(1)(C ), § 841(b)(1)(B ) a

uthoriz e s a

m a xim um life te rm of supe rvise d re le a s e tha t ove rride s the s horte r m a xim

um te rm s a uthoriz e d by

§ 3583(b).

3He rm osillo further a rgue s tha t Unite d State

s v . Book e r , 543 U.S. 220 (2005), re nde ring a dvisory

the onc e m andatory

Se nt e nc i ng Guide line s , unde rc uts Garc ia and its progeny . W e have c onside re d the argum e nt and c onc lude tha t Book e r ha s no e ffe c t on our re a soning in the se c a se s. B e c a use the distric t c ourt did not pla inly e rr in se nte nc ing He rm osillo to 15 y e ars of supe rvise d re le a se , the se nte nc e is AFFIRM E D .

4