T hi s or derand j udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptundert he * doctr i nes of l aw of the ca s e, r es j udi cat a, and col l at er al es t oppel . I tm aybe ci t ed, h o w e v e r, fo r its p e rsu a siv e v a lu e c o n sis ten t w ith F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 2 .1 a n d 1 0 th C i r . R . 32. 1. 

## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### Ju n e26,2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA , Pl ai nt i ff - A ppel l ee, v. RO Y AL L E N P AC HE CO , D e fe n d a n t - A p p e llan t. N o. 06- 2231 ( D . C . N o. C R - 96- 663) (D .N .M .)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e KELLY , AN DE RS ON , and HENR Y , C i rcui tJudg es. D efe ndant - A ppel l antR oyA l l en Pache co appe al s fr om t he s ent ence im p o se d fo r v io latio n o f h is s u p e rv ise d re lea se . T h e d istric t co u rt se n ten c e d h im t o t w enty - fourm ont hs ’ i m pr i s onm entfol l ow ed bya fi ve- y eart erm of s upervi s ed release . O u r j u ri sd ict ion arises u n d er 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 9 1 an d 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 7 4 2 (a), a n d b e c a u se th e se n ten c e is b e y o n d th e sta tu to rym a x im u m , w e re m a n d w ith i ns t ruct i ons t o vaca t e the s ent ence and r es ent ence .- 2 - B ackgr ound O n February12, 1997, M r . Pachec o w as convi ct ed of one countof ag g rav ated sex u al ab u se o f a ch il d in In d ian C o u n ty . S ee 1 8 U . S . C . § § 2 2 4 1 (a) & 22 46 (2) (A ). S ho rt l yt hereaft er, the d i stri ctcou rtsent enced him t o 1 08 m on ths’ im p ri so n m en t t o b e fo ll o w ed b ythree y ea rs of su p erv ised release . A s a stan d ard condi t i on of M r . Pachec o’ s s upervi s ed r el eas e, he w as t o have no c ont actw i th any chi l dr en undert he age of s i xt een. M r . Pachec o comm ence d s upervi s ed r el eas e on Sept ember12, 2005. O n J ul y6, 2006, a fe der al pr obat i on offi cerfi l ed a pe t i t i on forr evoca t i on of s upervi s ed r el eas e. T he pet i t i on al l eged thatM r . Pachec o had vi ol at ed a condi t i on of hi s s upervi s ed r el eas e bys pendi ng t i m e al one w i th chi l dr en undert he age of s i xt een. O n A ugus t2, 2006, the di s tr i ctcour thel d a vi ol at i on hear i ng, at w h ic h b o th th e g o v e rn m e n t a n d M r. P a c h e c o c a lle d s e v e ra l w itn e s s e s to te s tif y . T he di s t r i ctcourtdet erm i ned thatM r . Pachec o vi ol at ed the pert i nentcondi t i on and i m po sed a sentence of tw enty -four m on ths’ i m pri sonm ent and five y ears ’ s u p e rv is e d re le a s e . O n a p p e a l, M r. P a c h e c o a rg u e s th a t th e d istric t co u rt (1 ) c o m m itt e d p lain err ori n i m pos i ng a s ent ence i n exce s s of the s t atut or ym axi m um , and ( 2) i m pos ed a n u n re a so n a b le s e n ten c e o f tw e n ty -fo u r m o n th s’ im p riso n m e n t. W e a g re e w ith t he fi r s tpoi ntand nee d notr eac h the s econd.- 3 - D i s cus s i on B e c a u se M r. P a c h e c o w a ited u n til a p p e a l to c h a llen g e th e leg a lityo f h is s e n t e n c e o n t h e g r o u n d t h a ti te x c e e d s th e s t a tu t o ryma x i mu m s e n t e n c e , we r evi ew onl yforpl ai n err or . U ni t ed St at es v. L opez- Fl or es , 444 F. 3d 1218, 1221 ( 10t h C i r . 2006) . U nderpl ai n err oranal y s i s , M r . Pachec o m us tes t abl i s h ( 1) an e rro r (2 ) th a t is p lain (3 ) th a t affe c ts h is s u b sta n tial rig h ts, a n d (4 ) th a t se rio u sly affect s t he fa i r nes s , i nt egr i t y , orpubl i c r eput at i on of j udi ci al pr ocee di ngs . See U n it ed S tat es v . O lano , 5 0 7 U . S . 7 2 5 , 7 3 2 -34 (19 9 3 ). T he o perabl e st atutoryprovis i on , 18 U . S . C . § 3 58 3(h), st at es: W h e n a ter m o f

su p e rv ise d re lea se is re v o k e d a n d th e d e fe n d a n t is r equi r ed t o s erve a t erm of i m pr i s onm ent , the courtm ayi ncl ude a r equi r ementt hatt he defendantbe pl ace d on a t erm of s upervi s ed r el eas e af

t eri m pr i s onm ent . T he l ength of s uch a t erm of s upervi s ed r el eas e s hal l notexce ed the t erm of s upervi s ed r el eas e author i zed by s t atut e fort he offens e thatr es ul t ed i n the or i gi nal t erm of s upervi s ed r el eas e, l es s anyt erm of i m pr i s onm entthatw as i m pos ed upon r evoca t i on of s upervi s ed r el eas e. D ue t o t he fa ctt hatt he cr i m e forw hi ch M r . Pachec o w as or i gi nal l yconvi ct ed— s exual abus e of a m i nor— w as a cl as s A fel ony , s ee 18 U . S. C . § 3559( a) ( 1) ; 18 U .S .C . § 2 2 4 1 (a ), th e m a x im u m ter m o f su p e rv ise d re lea se a u th o riz e d b ysta tu te fort hatoffe ns e w as fi ve y ear s , s ee 18 U . S. C . § 3583( b) ( 1) . T hus , the maxi m um t erm of s upervi s ed r el eas e thatcoul d be i m pos ed forM r . Pachec o’ s vi ol at i on w as fi ve y ear s “l es s anyt erm of i m pr i s onm entthatw as i m pos ed upon r evoca t i on of s upervi s ed r el eas e. ” See i d. at§ 3583( h) . B eca us e the di s tr i ctcour ti m pos ed a- 4 -

t erm of i m pr i s onm entof tw o y ear s , the maxi m um al l ow abl e t erm of s upervi s ed r el eas e w as t hr ee y ear s . T he di s tr i ctcour t , how ever , i m pos ed a t erm of s u p e r v i s e d r e l e a s e o f

fi v e y e a r s — two y e a r s b e y o n d th e s t a tu t o ryma x i mu m. T he di s t r i ctcour tcomm i t t ed err orthatw as pl ai n. M or eover , a s ent ence w hich exceed s the st atutorym axim um , and i s therefore i l l egal, bo th affect s a defe ndant ’ s s ubs t ant i al r i ght s and cons t i tut es a mi s carr i age of j us t i ce. See U ni t ed S tate s v . M o y e r, 2 8 2 F .3 d 1 3 1 1 , 1 3 1 9 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 2 ) (“ U n d e r o u r c irc u it pr ece dent , t he i m pos i t i on of an i l l egal s ent ence cons t i tut es pl ai n err oreven i f the s ent ence favor s the defendant . ”) ( ci t i ng U ni t ed St at es v. Z ei gl er , 19 F. 3d 486, 494 ( 10t h C i r . 1994) ) . C ons equent l y , w e r emand t o the di s tr i ctcour ts o thati tm ay v a c a te th e s e n te n c e a n d re s e n te n c e M r. P a c h e c o c o n s is te n t w ith 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 8 3 (h). B eca us e w e r emand bas ed on the i m pos i t i on of an i l l egal s ent ence , w e nee d notr eac h t he i s s ue of w hethert he tw enty - fourm onth t erm of i m pr i s onm entw as rea so n ab le. S ee U n it ed S tat es v . C an o -S il v a, 40 2 F . 3 d 1 0 3 1 , 1 0 3 8 -39 (10 th C ir . 2005) ( expl ai ni ng t hati ti s unnece s s aryt o r eac h an addi t i onal ar gum entas t o w hy a part i cul ars ent ence i s err oneous w hen ther e i s anothergr ound r equi r i ng thatt he s ent ence be r emanded) . W hi l e w e harborno doubtthat , i n l i ghtof the di s tr i ct c o u r t ’ s fa c tu a l fi n d i n g s , s e e 2 R . ( T r . 8 / 2 / 2 0 0 6 ) a t1 3 4 - 3 5 , 1 4 4 - 4 5 , th e tw e n tyfourm ont h t erm of i m pr i s onm entw as “r eas oned and r eas onabl e, ” s ee U ni t ed St at es v. T edfor d, 405 F. 3d 1159, 1161 ( 10th C i r . 2005) ; U ni t ed St at es v. L ee,- 5 -

95 7 F . 2d 77 0, 77 4 (10th C i r. 19 92 ), the d i stri ctcou rti s fr ee on rem and t o im po se wh a t e v e rc o mb i n a t i o n o f i mp r i s o n me n ta n d s u p e r v i s e d r e l e a s e i tn o w d e e ms a p p ro p ria te, s o lo n g a s th e to tal te rm o f p u n ish m e n t (im p riso n m e n t co m b in e d w ith s u p e rv is e d re le a s e ) d o e s n o t e x c e e d fiv e y e a rs . R E M A N D E D w i t h i ns t ruct i ons t o vaca t e M r . Pachec o’ s s ent ence and r es ent ence .

E n tered fo r th e C o u rt P au l J. K ell y , Jr. C i r cui tJ udge