Opinion ID: 4301672
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Applicable Statutory Maximum Sentence

Text: On appeal, Hinkson argues that his statutory maximum term of imprisonment was ten years under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(1) because his 1987 Massachusetts assault and battery conviction did not qualify as an aggravated felony under § 1326(b)(2). We need not resolve this issue, however, because, as the government points out, the district court explicitly stated that it would have imposed the same 72-month sentence even if Hinkson’s applicable statutory maximum sentence was ten years rather than twenty. Under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 52(a), an error is harmless and must be disregarded if it does not affect substantial rights. Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(a). At sentencing, a non-constitutional error is harmless “if, viewing the proceedings in their entirety, [the] court determines that the error did not affect the [sentence], or had but very slight effect.” United States v. Mathenia, 409 F.3d 1289, 1292 (11th Cir. 2005) (second alteration in original, internal quotation marks omitted). 11 Case: 17-14142 Date Filed: 08/07/2018 Page: 12 of 16 In the context of an alleged guidelines calculation error, this Court has explained that when the district court states that, based on its consideration of the § 3553(a) factors, it would have imposed the same sentence regardless, that error is harmless so long as the sentence is reasonable under the correctly calculated guidelines. See United States v. Keene, 470 F.3d 1347, 1349-50 (11th Cir. 2006) (concluding that “it would make no sense to set aside this reasonable sentence and send the case back to the district court since it has already told us that it would impose exactly the same sentence, a sentence we would be compelled to affirm”). Here, the district court told us that even if Hinkson was correct that his statutory maximum was ten years, it would have imposed the same 72-month sentence. Moreover, Hinkson’s 72-month sentence does not exceed ten years (120 months) and run afoul of § 1326(b)(1). Thus, the record demonstrates that any error as to the applicable statutory maximum did not affect Hinkson’s sentence. Under these circumstances, any error was harmless and does not require a remand for resentencing.3 3 Hinkson moved this Court for permission to supplement the record on appeal with an affidavit from the attorney who represented him in Massachusetts when his 1987 assault and battery conviction was vacated in 2005. Because we do not address whether Hinkson’s nowvacated assault and battery conviction qualifies as an aggravated felony for purposes of § 1326(b)(2), we DENY Hinkson’s motion to supplement the record. 12 Case: 17-14142 Date Filed: 08/07/2018 Page: 13 of 16