Opinion ID: 177343
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Imposition of 23-Month Sentence

Text: McCall further argues that the district court erred in sentencing him to 23 months’ imprisonment. Under his interpretation of 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e), his maximum sentence is properly calculated as 12 months’ imprisonment. He argues that the offenses relevant to calculating the length of his sentence are the two nonfelonies that resulted in his second term of supervised release. Ordinarily, we review de novo a sentence imposed pursuant to the revocation of a term of supervised release, United States v. Mazarky, 499 F.3d 1246, 1248 (11th Cir. 2007), but where an appellant argues for the first time on appeal that his sentence exceeds the statutory maximum, as McCall does here, we will review only for plain error.1 See United States v. Nash, 438 F.3d 1302, 1304 (11th Cir. 2006) (per curiam) (“We review the terms of a supervised release for abuse of discretion, but where the defendant fails to object at the district court, we reverse only for plain error.”). “To establish plain error, a defendant must show there is (1) error, (2) that is plain, and (3) 1 McCall has abandoned any argument as to the reasonableness of his sentence because he failed to offer argument on this issue in his initial brief. See United States v. Jernigan, 341 F.3d 1273, 1283 n.8 (11th Cir. 2003). 4 that affects substantial rights.” United States v. Moriarty, 429 F.3d 1012, 1019 (11th