United States v. Manuel Page ( 2012 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-4646
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MANUEL L. PAGE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Beckley. Irene C. Berger,
District Judge. (5:04-cr-00155-1)
Submitted: December 8, 2011 Decided: January 5, 2012
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Mary Lou Newberger, Federal Public Defender, Jonathan D. Byrne,
Appellate Counsel, Christian M. Capece, Assistant Federal Public
Defender, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. R. Booth
Goodwin II, United States Attorney, John L. File, Assistant
United States Attorney, Beckley, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Manuel L. Page was found guilty of possessing a
firearm as a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 922(g)(1) (2006). The court sentenced Page to eighty-four
months’ imprisonment and three years’ supervised release. This
Court affirmed the conviction and sentence. United States v.
Page, 169 F. App’x 782 (4th Cir. 2006) (No. 05-4451). Page
served his imprisonment sentence and was released to supervision
on August 20, 2010. Shortly thereafter, Page violated several
conditions of his supervised release and the court revoked
Page’s supervised release. He was sentenced to sixty days’
imprisonment, sixty days’ community confinement, and twenty-four
months’ supervised release. This Court affirmed. United
States v. Page, No. 11-4013 (4th Cir. Oct. 27, 2011).
Page subsequently committed additional misconduct and
the court again revoked Page’s supervised release. Originally,
the court sentenced Page to the statutory maximum sentence of
twelve months imprisonment, followed by twenty-two months’
supervised release. 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3), (h) (2006).
However, upon defense counsel’s request, the district court
added one day to Page’s term of imprisonment in order to permit
him to earn good time credits while incarcerated. The court,
however, failed to decrease Page’s term of supervised release by
one day. Page timely appealed, arguing that his sentence is
2
plainly unreasonable because, among other reasons, it exceeds
the maximum possible sentence by one day. The Government
concedes that the district court committed plain error by
imposing a supervised release sentence one day in excess of the
statutory maximum. We agree.
Because Page did not raise this argument below, we
review for plain error. United States v. Massenburg, 564 F.3d
337, 342 (4th Cir. 2009). To establish plain error, Page “must
show: (1) an error was made; (2) the error is plain; and
(3) the error affects substantial rights.” Id., at 342-43.
Because the district court originally imposed a
sentence at the statutory maximum, once it increased Page’s
imprisonment sentence by one day, it was required to decrease
Page’s term of supervised release by one day. 18 U.S.C.
§ 3583(e)(3) and (h). The district court’s failure to do so is
plain error. Massenburg, 564 F.3d at 342.
Accordingly, we vacate the district court’s amended
revocation of supervised release and judgment order, and remand
this case for resentencing in accordance with this opinion. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
VACATED AND REMANDED
3