Court Opinion

ID: 9941194
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-16 01:01:28.011557+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:46:20.678784
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-10112   Document: 00517065656    Page: 1   Date Filed: 02/15/2024

          United States Court of Appeals
               for the Fifth Circuit
                          _____________
                                                            United States Court of Appeals
                                                                     Fifth Circuit
                            No. 23-10112
                        consolidated with                          FILED
                            No. 23-10114                    February 15, 2024
                          Summary Calendar                    Lyle W. Cayce
                          _____________                            Clerk

   United States of America,

                                                     Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                versus

   Lani Lucas Limane,

                                                  Defendant—Appellant,

                        consolidated with
                          _____________

                        Nos. 23-10115, 23-10117
                         _____________

   United States of America,

                                                     Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                versus

   Lukasz Chad Limane,

                                                  Defendant—Appellant.
Case: 23-10112         Document: 00517065656             Page: 2      Date Filed: 02/15/2024

                                         No. 23-10112
                              c/w Nos. 23-10114, 23-10115, 23-10117

                      ______________________________

                     Appeals from the United States District Court
                          for the Northern District of Texas
                      USDC Nos. 3:19-CR-620-1, 3:20-CR-28-1,
                            3:21-CR-539-1, 3:21-CR-600-1
                     ______________________________

   Before Smith, Higginson, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          In this consolidated appeal, Lani Limane appeals two criminal judg-
   ments and two judgments imposed after the district court had revoked his
   supervised release in two earlier cases. On appeal, Limane challenges, for the
   first time, his guilty-plea conviction of aggravated identity theft and the impo-
   sition of 12 terms of imprisonment in one of the revocation cases.
          Regarding his guilty plea to aggravated identity theft, Limane has
   failed to establish any clear or obvious constructive amendment of his indict-
   ment because, in this case, he pleaded guilty to the same conduct for which
   he was indicted. See United States v. Chaker, 820 F.3d 204, 213 (5th Cir.
   2016); United States v. Robles-Vertiz, 155 F.3d 725, 729 (5th Cir. 1998). In
   other words, the government maintained a single theory of conviction on the
   aggravated-identity-theft count because the indictment alleged, and Limane
   admitted at rearraignment, that Count 8 was based on his fraudulent trans-
   mission, by wire communication, of former Company A employees’ access
   devices. See Chaker, 820 F.3d at 211; United States v. Reasor, 418 F.3d 466,
   474–77 (5th Cir. 2005).
          Limane’s assertions of plain errors under Federal Rule of Criminal
   Procedure 11 are similarly unpersuasive, as the record establishes that the
   district court ensured Limane’s understanding of the elements of aggravated
   identity theft at rearraignment. See United States v. Vonn, 535 U.S. 55, 58–59
          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

                                                2
Case: 23-10112      Document: 00517065656          Page: 3       Date Filed: 02/15/2024

                                    No. 23-10112
                         c/w Nos. 23-10114, 23-10115, 23-10117

   (2002); United States v. Jones, 969 F.3d 192, 198 (5th Cir. 2020); United
   States v. De Nieto, 922 F.3d 669, 677 (5th Cir. 2019). Contrary to Limane’s
   contention that the crime charged in Count 8 constituted a different crime
   from the one to which he pleaded guilty, the record establishes that Counts 1
   and 7 were based on the same fraudulent scheme, and Limane confirmed his
   understanding of that scheme at rearraignment. Further, the facts admitted
   by Limane establish the essential elements of aggravated identity theft. See
   De Nieto, 922 F.3d at 677; Dubin v. United States, 599 U.S. 110, 114 (2023);
   United States v. Avalos-Sanchez, 975 F.3d 436, 440 (5th Cir. 2020). Limane’s
   novel factual-basis challenge does not establish plain error. See United States
   v. Alvarado-Casas, 715 F.3d 945, 951–52 (5th Cir. 2013).
          As for the revocation sentence, Limane maintains that the district
   court erred by imposing more terms of imprisonment than allowed. See
   United States v. Greer, 59 F.4th 158, 161–62 (5th Cir. 2023); 18 U.S.C.
   § 3583(e)(3). The record shows, however, that the original sentencing court
   imposed 12 concurrent terms of supervised release, so the district court here
   did not err in imposing 12 consecutive terms of imprisonment upon revoking
   those terms of supervision. See United States v. Gonzalez, 250 F.3d 923,
   928–29 (5th Cir. 2001).
          Finally, Limane urges us to vacate his other two judgments to the
   extent that his theories above are successful. Because we reject those con-
   tentions, we decline to vacate the remaining judgments.
          Accordingly, the judgments are AFFIRMED.

                                          3