Opinion ID: 779997
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Sentencing Guidelines and Supervised Release Terms

Text: 26 Even assuming that the court had statutory authority to impose a ten-year term of supervised release, Cortes-Claudio argues that the district court committed error when it sua sponte departed upward from the supervised release term set forth in the Sentencing Guidelines. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 3553(a) and 3553(b) (2000); U.S.S.G. § 5K2 (2001). According to Cortes-Claudio, the Guidelines, if not the statute under which he was sentenced, mandates that the district court impose a term of five years supervised release. See § 5D1.2. Relying on § 5D1.2 of the Guidelines, Cortes-Claudio contends that his ten-year supervised release term was an upward departure from the guideline range. If the court intended to depart from the guideline sentence, Cortes-Claudio contends that it was required to provide advance notice to the parties. See Burns v. United States, 501 U.S. 129, 135, 111 S.Ct. 2182, 115 L.Ed.2d 123 (1990) (holding that a district court may not sua sponte upwardly depart from the guideline sentencing range without first notifying the defendant of its intention to do so and specifically identifying the ground on which it contemplates departing upward). 27 A district court is required by statute to sentence within the guideline range absent aggravating or mitigating circumstances. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(b). Under the Guidelines, Cortes-Claudio was subject to a five-year supervised release term. § 5D1.2(a)(1); see also United States v. Sasson, 62 F.3d 874, 891 (7th Cir.1995). Section 5D1.2(a)(1) provides that if a term of supervised release is ordered the length of the term for a Class A or B felony shall be at least three years but not more than five years. The term of supervised release imposed, however, cannot drop below the statutory minimum. 5D1.2(b). Here, the guideline range for supervised release was three to five years and the statutorily required minimum sentence was five years. Thus, the guideline sentence was five years, with no special exception for drug offenses. See United States v. Mora, 22 F.3d 409, 413 (2d Cir.1994). A sentence that exceeds the guideline range is considered an upward departure. See United States v. Harotunian, 920 F.2d 1040, 1042-43 (1st Cir.1990) (defining a departure as a sentence outside the guideline sentencing range). Thus, when the district court imposed a ten-year supervised release term, it departed upward from the Guideline sentence, requiring advance notice to the parties, Burns, 501 U.S. at 138-39, 111 S.Ct. 2182, and also an explanation for the departure. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(b); § 5K2 U.S.S.G. 28 Here the court apparently overlooked the fact that it was departing from the guideline range when it imposed a ten-year term of supervised release. It stated that both the term of imprisonment and the ten years of supervised release were within the sentencing guidelines. Cortes Claudio, 152 F.Supp.2d at 181. This faulty assumption led to the two additional errors already suggested. The court did not provide the parties notice of a potential upward departure, see Burns, 501 U.S. at 135, 111 S.Ct. 2182, and the court did not make the required findings of an aggravating or mitigating circumstance to support the departure, see Sasson, 62 F.3d at 891 (requiring advance notice and an explanation for an upward departure from five years supervised release to ten years supervised release); Eng, 14 F.3d at 171 (concluding that judge had to find aggravating circumstance before departing upward to a life time supervised release term); United States v. Stevens, 985 F.2d 1175, 1188 (2d Cir.1993) (requiring advance notice and a statement of reasons for departure for a life supervised release term). 29 Cortes-Claudio did not, it is true, object at the time of sentencing to the supervised release term. Generally, when a party fails to contemporaneously object to an error in sentencing we review only for plain error. United States v. Albanese, 287 F.3d 226, 227 (1st Cir.2002). We have recognized, however, in the context of sentencing, that a post-sentence objection is not necessarily required to preserve the issue for appeal if the defendant could not reasonably have anticipated the issue would arise until after the court ruled. United States v. Gallant, 306 F.3d 1181, 1188-89 (1st Cir.2002); see also United States v. Sofsky, 287 F.3d 122, 125 (2d Cir.2002) (concluding that in the sentencing context there are circumstances that permit a court to relax the otherwise rigorous standards of plain error review to correct sentencing errors). The defendant could not have anticipated the district court's decision to impose a ten-year supervised release term. Neither the pre-sentence report nor the Assistant United States Attorney advocated a sentence that exceeded the guidelines range. Nor did the court provide notice to the parties that it intended to depart from the guideline sentence. And it did not invite argument on the length of the supervised release term. Until the court announced the sentence, the defendant was without actual or constructive notice of the likelihood of a term of supervised release that exceeded the guideline range. As in Gallant, given the facts here, we think it simply would be unfair and unwise as a matter of policy to hold that Cortes-Claudio waived this argument. 306 F.3d at 1189. We thus need not reach the question whether the upward departure amounted to plain error. But see United States v. Mangone, 105 F.3d 29, 35 (1st Cir.1997) (lack of Burns notice constituted plain error); United States v. Carmichael, 216 F.3d 224, 227 (2d Cir.2000) (finding plain error when supervised release term exceeded term allowed by guidelines); United States v. Valentine, 21 F.3d 395, 398 (11th Cir.1994) (lack of Burns notice was plain error). 30 We accordingly vacate the ten-year supervised release term and remand to the district court for re-sentencing as to the length of the term of supervised release. Should the district court believe that aggravating circumstances of a kind, or to a degree, not adequately taken into consideration by the Sentencing Commission appear to justify an upward departure, it must give advance notice to the defendant and the government and the grounds of its likely intent to depart upward. See Burns, 501 U.S. at 135, 111 S.Ct. 2182. If the court thereafter finds that aggravating circumstances not considered by the Sentencing Commission are such as to warrant a sentence different from that proscribed in the Guidelines, it must set forth those reasons on the record. 18 U.S.C. § 3553. 31 So ordered.