Opinion ID: 4510423
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Sentence Greater than Statutory Maximum

Text: Fourth, Caldwell asserts the district court erred when it imposed a 161month total sentence which was greater than the maximum statutory sentence 7 Case: 18-15087 Date Filed: 02/26/2020 Page: 8 of 11 permitted. The district court sentenced Caldwell at the high end of his Guidelines range, 137 months’ imprisonment on Counts 1, 2, 4, and 5, to run concurrently. The district court further sentenced Caldwell to 24 months’ imprisonment on Count 3, to run consecutively. Caldwell contends the maximum prison sentence permitted by law on Counts 1, 2, and 5 1 is 120 months’ imprisonment. See 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(2) (Count 1); 18 U.S.C. § 1029(c)(1)(A)(i) (Counts 2 and 5). The Government concedes that Caldwell correctly argues the district court erred when it imposed a 137-month sentence as to Counts 1, 2, and 5. The Government contends the district court should have structured the sentence by imposing concurrent terms of 120 months’ imprisonment as to Counts 1, 2, and 5, and a 137-month sentence for Count 4, which carries a statutory maximum of 240 months. See 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(C). We have held that Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 36 “may not be used to make a substantive alteration to a criminal sentence.” United States v. Portillo, 363 F.3d 1161, 1164 (11th Cir. 2004) (quotations omitted). In addition, we have held that Rule 36 permits courts to “correct an error in the record arising from [an] oversight. Id. at 1165. 1 Caldwell’s counts of conviction are as follows: Count 1—possession of a firearm by a convicted felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1); Count 2—possession of unauthorized access devices, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1029(a)(3); Count 3—aggravated identity theft, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1028A(a)(1); Count 4—possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1); and Count 5—possession of unauthorized access devices, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1029(a)(3). 8 Case: 18-15087 Date Filed: 02/26/2020 Page: 9 of 11 The district court erred in how it structured Caldwell’s sentence because it sentenced him to 137-months’ imprisonment as to Counts 1, 2, and 5, when the statutory maximum sentence for those counts is 120 months’ imprisonment. See United States v. Mazarky, 499 F.3d 1246, 1248 (11th Cir. 2007) (reviewing the legality of a sentence de novo). However, this error is one that can be corrected, pursuant to Rule 36, as the correction will not result in a substantive alteration to Caldwell’s sentence. See Portillo, 363 F.3d at 1164-65. The district court could sentence Caldwell to 120-months’ imprisonment as to Counts 1, 2, and 5 to run concurrently with a 137-month sentence as to Count 4, and an additional 24 months to run consecutively as to Count 3 for a total sentence of 161 months’ imprisonment. Allowing the district court to enter a new judgment, pursuant to Rule 36, will allow the district court to correct an oversight in how it announced Caldwell’s sentence, without making the sentence more onerous. See id.