Court Opinion

ID: 9364091
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-18 15:00:34.623824+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:35.755309
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-13090    Document: 20-1     Date Filed: 01/18/2023   Page: 1 of 3

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                          ____________________

                                No. 22-13090
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                      Plaintiff-Appellee,
       versus
       TRAVIS DEWAYNE GOINS,

                                                  Defendant-Appellant.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                    for the Southern District of Alabama
                   D.C. Docket No. 1:15-cr-00248-KD-N-1
                          ____________________
USCA11 Case: 22-13090      Document: 20-1     Date Filed: 01/18/2023     Page: 2 of 3

       2                      Opinion of the Court                 22-13090

       Before ROSENBAUM, NEWSOM, and BRASHER, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              Travis Dewayne Goins, a counseled federal prisoner, ap-
       peals after the district court revoked his supervised release and sen-
       tenced him to 12 months of imprisonment and an additional 24-
       month term of supervised release. Goins maintains that the court
       plainly erred by imposing an additional term of supervised release
       because it failed to account for the terms of imprisonment he had
       already served for prior revocations. The government agrees that
       plain error occurred and moves for summary reversal. We grant
       the government’s motion.
              Summary reversal is appropriate “where the result is clear as
       a matter of law so that there can be no substantial question as to
       the outcome.” Brown v. United States, 942 F.3d 1069, 1076 n.6
       (11th Cir. 2019). Because Goins did not object below, he must es-
       tablish that the district court plainly erred. See United States v.
       Ramirez-Flores, 743 F.3d 816, 821 (11th Cir. 2014). He has done so.
              The district court, when imposing a sentence following rev-
       ocation of supervised release, may include a new “term of super-
       vised release after imprisonment.” 18 U.S.C. § 3583(h). But that
       new term cannot exceed the “term of supervised release author-
       ized by statute” for the underlying offense, “less any term of im-
       prisonment that was imposed” for prior revocations. Id. This
       means, in other words, that the maximum allowable term of
USCA11 Case: 22-13090      Document: 20-1      Date Filed: 01/18/2023     Page: 3 of 3

       22-13090                Opinion of the Court                         3

       supervised release following multiple revocations must be reduced
       by the total prison term that has been imposed upon revocation.
       United States v. Moore, 22 F.4th 1258, 1265 (11th Cir. 2022); United
       States v. Mazarky, 499 F.3d 1246, 1250 (11th Cir. 2007). If the total
       revocation prison term meets or exceeds the maximum statutory
       term of supervised release, no new supervision may be imposed.
               The maximum term of supervised release for Goins’s origi-
       nal conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) was 36 months. See 18
       U.S.C. § 3583(b)(2). The record shows that he was sentenced to a
       total of approximately 44 months for his revocations. Thus, under
       § 3583(h), because his total revocation prison term was “in excess
       of the statutory maximum amount of supervised release, the dis-
       trict court was not authorized to impose any additional supervised
       release and it was error for the district court to do so.” Moore, 22
       F.4th at 1265.
              This error warrants correction under the plain-error stand-
       ard. Id. at 1264–65. The error is plain under the text of § 3583(h)
       and this Circuit’s decisions, it affects substantial rights by exposing
       Goins to an unauthorized term of supervised release, and it under-
       mines judicial proceedings by causing “an unnecessary deprivation
       of liberty.” See id. at 1265 (quotation marks omitted).
              For these reasons, there is “no substantial question” as to the
       outcome of this appeal. Brown, 942 F.3d at 1076 n.6. We GRANT
       the government’s motion and summarily REVERSE the super-
       vised release portion of Goins’s sentence. The government’s mo-
       tion to stay the briefing schedule is DENIED as moot.