United States v. Moreland , 253 F. App'x 412 ( 2007 )


Menu:
  •           IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals
    Fifth Circuit
    FILED
    November 8, 2007
    No. 07-30183
    Summary Calendar               Charles R. Fulbruge III
    Clerk
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
    Plaintiff-Appellee
    v.
    JESS WILLARD MORELAND, JR
    Defendant-Appellant
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Western District of Louisiana
    USDC No. 6:02-CR-60047-1
    Before HIGGINBOTHAM, STEWART, and OWEN, Circuit Judges:
    PER CURIAM:*
    Jess Willard Moreland, Jr., challenges the sentence imposed following the
    third revocation of his supervised release from his 1998 guilty plea conviction for
    making a false statement on a loan application to the Farmers Home
    Administration (FmHA) in violation of 
    18 U.S.C. § 1014
     (counts 1-3); theft of
    government money in violation of 
    18 U.S.C. § 641
     (counts 4-9); money laundering
    in violation of 
    18 U.S.C. § 1957
     (counts 15-19); and one count of paying a gratuity
    to a government employee in violation of 
    18 U.S.C. § 201
    (c)(1)(A) (count 20).
    *
    Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion
    should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited
    circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
    No. 07-30183
    Upon revoking Moreland’s supervised release, the district court sentenced
    Moreland to a total term of 36 months of imprisonment: 24 months as to count
    1, 6 months to count 2, and 6 months to count 3, all to be served consecutively.
    For the first time on appeal, Moreland contends that the 36-month sentence
    imposed by the district court exceeded the statutory maximum sentence.
    Generally when an issue is not raised below, we review only for plain
    error. United States v. Sias, 
    227 F.3d 244
    , 246 (5th Cir. 2000). “However,
    because a sentence which exceeds the statutory maximum is an illegal sentence
    and therefore constitutes plain error, our review of the issue presented in this
    appeal will be de novo.” 
    Id.
    Moreland’s conviction for making false statements on his loan application
    to the FmHA carried with it the most severe penalty, up to 30 years of
    imprisonment. See 
    18 U.S.C. § 1014
    . Thus, Moreland’s conviction on these
    counts was for a Class B felony. 
    18 U.S.C. § 3559
    (a). Under the version of 
    18 U.S.C. § 3583
    (e)(3) applicable to Moreland’s 1998 convictions, the maximum
    cumulative term of imprisonment upon revocation to which Moreland was
    subject was 36 months. However, Moreland had previously been sentenced to
    a total of ten months of imprisonment as a result of his two prior revocations in
    2002 and 2006, and as a result of these two prior revocations, Moreland was
    serving only a single term of supervised release. Consequently, the maximum
    term of imprisonment to which Moreland could be sentenced following the third
    revocation was 26 months. Accordingly, as the Government concedes, the total
    sentence of 36 months imposed by the district court exceeded the statutory
    maximum and is illegal. Moreland’s sentence is VACATED and the case is
    REMANDED for resentencing.
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 15-10045

Citation Numbers: 253 F. App'x 412

Filed Date: 11/8/2007

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 1/12/2023