United States v. Pacheco , 237 F. App'x 367 ( 2007 )


Menu:
  •                                                                         F I L E D
    United States Court of Appeals
    Tenth Circuit
    UNITED STATES CO URT O F APPEALS
    June 26, 2007
    TENTH CIRCUIT                     Elisabeth A. Shumaker
    Clerk of Court
    U N ITED STA TES O F A M ER ICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    No. 06-2231
    v.                                                   (D.C. No. CR-96-663)
    (D .N.M .)
    R OY A LLEN PA CH EC O,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    OR D ER AND JUDGM ENT *
    Before KELLY, A ND ER SO N, and HENRY, Circuit Judges.
    Defendant-Appellant Roy Allen Pacheco appeals from the sentence
    imposed for violation of his supervised release. The district court sentenced him
    to twenty-four months’ imprisonment followed by a five-year term of supervised
    release. Our jurisdiction arises under 
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
     and 
    18 U.S.C. § 3742
    (a),
    and because the sentence is beyond the statutory maximum, we remand with
    instructions to vacate the sentence and resentence.
    *
    This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the
    doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited,
    however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th
    Cir. R. 32.1.
    Background
    On February 12, 1997, M r. Pacheco was convicted of one count of
    aggravated sexual abuse of a child in Indian C ounty. See 
    18 U.S.C. §§ 2241
    (a) &
    2246(2)(A). Shortly thereafter, the district court sentenced him to 108 months’
    imprisonment to be followed by three years of supervised release. As a standard
    condition of M r. Pacheco’s supervised release, he was to have no contact with any
    children under the age of sixteen. M r. Pacheco commenced supervised release on
    September 12, 2005.
    On July 6, 2006, a federal probation officer filed a petition for revocation
    of supervised release. The petition alleged that M r. Pacheco had violated a
    condition of his supervised release by spending time alone with children under the
    age of sixteen. On August 2, 2006, the district court held a violation hearing, at
    which both the government and M r. Pacheco called several witnesses to testify.
    The district court determined that M r. Pacheco violated the pertinent condition
    and imposed a sentence of twenty-four months’ imprisonment and five years’
    supervised release.
    On appeal, M r. Pacheco argues that the district court (1) committed plain
    error in imposing a sentence in excess of the statutory maximum, and (2) imposed
    an unreasonable sentence of twenty-four months’ imprisonment. We agree with
    the first point and need not reach the second.
    -2-
    Discussion
    Because M r. Pacheco waited until appeal to challenge the legality of his
    sentence on the ground that it exceeds the statutory maximum sentence, we
    review only for plain error. United States v. Lopez-Flores, 
    444 F.3d 1218
    , 1221
    (10th Cir. 2006). Under plain error analysis, M r. Pacheco must establish (1) an
    error (2) that is plain (3) that affects his substantial rights, and (4) that seriously
    affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. See
    United States v. Olano, 
    507 U.S. 725
    , 732-34 (1993).
    The operable statutory provision, 
    18 U.S.C. § 3583
    (h), states:
    W hen a term of supervised release is revoked and the defendant is
    required to serve a term of imprisonment, the court may include a
    requirement that the defendant be placed on a term of supervised
    release after imprisonment. 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.
    Due to the fact that the crime for which M r. Pacheco was originally convicted—
    sexual abuse of a minor— was a class A felony, see 
    18 U.S.C. § 3559
    (a)(1); 
    18 U.S.C. § 2241
    (a), the maximum term of supervised release authorized by statute
    for that offense was five years, see 
    18 U.S.C. § 3583
    (b)(1). Thus, the maximum
    term of supervised release that could be imposed for M r. Pacheco’s violation was
    five years “less any term of imprisonment that was imposed upon revocation of
    supervised release.” See 
    id.
     at § 3583(h). Because the district court imposed a
    -3-
    term of imprisonment of two years, the maximum allowable term of supervised
    release was three years. The district court, however, imposed a term of
    supervised release of five years— two years beyond the statutory maximum.
    The district court committed error that was plain. M oreover, a sentence
    which exceeds the statutory maximum, and is therefore illegal, both affects a
    defendant’s substantial rights and constitutes a miscarriage of justice. See United
    States v. M oyer, 
    282 F.3d 1311
    , 1319 (10th Cir. 2002) (“Under our circuit
    precedent, the imposition of an illegal sentence constitutes plain error even if the
    sentence favors the defendant.”) (citing United States v. Zeigler, 
    19 F.3d 486
    , 494
    (10th Cir. 1994)). Consequently, we remand to the district court so that it may
    vacate the sentence and resentence M r. Pacheco consistent with 
    18 U.S.C. § 3583
    (h).
    Because we remand based on the imposition of an illegal sentence, we need
    not reach the issue of whether the twenty-four month term of imprisonment was
    reasonable. See United States v. Cano-Silva, 
    402 F.3d 1031
    , 1038-39 (10th Cir.
    2005) (explaining that it is unnecessary to reach an additional argument as to why
    a particular sentence is erroneous when there is another ground requiring that the
    sentence be remanded). W hile we harbor no doubt that, in light of the district
    court’s factual findings, see 2 R. (Tr. 8/2/2006) at 134-35, 144-45, the twenty-
    four month term of imprisonment was “reasoned and reasonable,” see United
    States v. Tedford, 
    405 F.3d 1159
    , 1161 (10th Cir. 2005); United States v. Lee,
    -4-
    
    957 F.2d 770
    , 774 (10th Cir. 1992), the district court is free on remand to impose
    whatever combination of imprisonment and supervised release it now deems
    appropriate, so long as the total term of punishment (imprisonment combined with
    supervised release) does not exceed five years.
    REM ANDED with instructions to vacate M r. Pacheco’s sentence and
    resentence.
    Entered for the Court
    Paul J. Kelly, Jr.
    Circuit Judge
    -5-