Court Opinion

ID: 9391922
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-03 18:00:54.407989+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:34.288030
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-14281    Document: 17-1     Date Filed: 05/03/2023   Page: 1 of 3

                                               [DO NOT PUBLISH]
                                   In the
                United States Court of Appeals
                        For the Eleventh Circuit

                          ____________________

                                No. 22-14281
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                      Plaintiff-Appellee,
       versus
       BRUCE ANTHONY ROLLEY,

                                                  Defendant-Appellant.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                    for the Northern District of Alabama
                 D.C. Docket No. 2:19-cr-00568-ACA-HNJ-1
                          ____________________
USCA11 Case: 22-14281     Document: 17-1     Date Filed: 05/03/2023    Page: 2 of 3

       2                      Opinion of the Court               22-14281

       Before WILSON, LUCK, and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
               Bruce Rolley appeals from his 13-month term of imprison-
       ment and 24-month term of supervised release, imposed following
       the revocation of his term of supervised release from his original
       conviction of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. The par-
       ties have jointly moved for summary reversal, agreeing that the
       district court exceeded the maximum allowable total months of im-
       prisonment plus supervised release.
               Under § 3583(h), upon revocation of supervised release, the
       district court may impose a term of supervised release following a
       term of imprisonment. 18 U.S.C. § 3583(h). “The length of such a
       term of supervised release shall not exceed the term of supervised
       release authorized by statute for the offense that resulted in the
       original term of supervised release, less any term of imprisonment
       that was imposed upon revocation of supervised release.” Id.
       When a district court imposes a sentence upon revocation of su-
       pervised release that exceeds the maximum allowable term of su-
       pervised release, we will vacate the sentence and remand for resen-
       tencing. United States Mazarky, 499 F.3d 1246, 1252 (11th Cir.
       2007).
              We grant the parties’ joint motion for summary reversal.
       Rolley’s maximum term of supervised release for his original con-
       viction was 36 months. 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(2) (2018); 18 U.S.C.
USCA11 Case: 22-14281         Document: 17-1        Date Filed: 05/03/2023         Page: 3 of 3

       22-14281                   Opinion of the Court                               3

       §§ 3559(a)(3), 3583(b)(2). Thus, under § 3583(h), the district court
       was not authorized to impose a total sentence in excess of 36
       months. However, the district court imposed a 13-month term of
       imprisonment, followed by 24 months of supervised release, a total
       of 37 months—1 month greater than the statutory maximum. Ac-
       cordingly, the district court plainly erred by over-sentencing Rol-
       ley. United States v. Moore, 22 F.4th 1258, 1265 (11th Cir. 2022)
       (holding a term of supervised release that exceeds the statutory
       maximum amount is plain error); United States v. Ramirez-Flores,
       743 F.3d 816, 821 (11th Cir. 2014) (reviewing for plain error when
       a litigant does not raise an argument before the district court in a
       criminal proceeding).
              Because the parties’ position is clearly correct as a matter of
       law, we GRANT the joint motion for summary reversal. Groen-
       dyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1161-62 (5th Cir. 1969) 1
       (stating summary disposition is appropriate where “the position of
       one of the parties is clearly right as a matter of law so that there can
       be no substantial question as to the outcome of the case . . . .”).
              REVERSED AND REMANDED.

       1 In Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc),
       this Court adopted as binding precedent all decisions of the former Fifth Cir-
       cuit handed down prior to close of business on September 30, 1981.