United States v. Bruce Anthony Rolley

USCA11 Case: 22-14281 Document: 17-1 Date Filed: 05/03/2023 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 22-14281
Non-Argument Calendar
____________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
BRUCE ANTHONY ROLLEY,
Defendant-Appellant.
____________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Alabama
D.C. Docket No. 2:19-cr-00568-ACA-HNJ-1
____________________
USCA11 Case: 22-14281 Document: 17-1 Date Filed: 05/03/2023 Page: 2 of 3
2 Opinion of the Court 22-14281
Before WILSON, LUCK, and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Bruce Rolley appeals from his 13-month term of imprison-
ment and 24-month term of supervised release, imposed following
the revocation of his term of supervised release from his original
conviction of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. The par-
ties have jointly moved for summary reversal, agreeing that the
district court exceeded the maximum allowable total months of im-
prisonment plus supervised release.
Under § 3583(h), upon revocation of supervised release, the
district court may impose a term of supervised release following a
term of imprisonment. 18 U.S.C. § 3583(h). “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.” Id.When a district court imposes a sentence upon revocation of su-
pervised release that exceeds the maximum allowable term of su-
pervised release, we will vacate the sentence and remand for resen-
tencing. United States Mazarky, 499 F.3d 1246, 1252 (11th Cir.
2007).
We grant the parties’ joint motion for summary reversal.
Rolley’s maximum term of supervised release for his original con-
viction was 36 months. 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(2) (2018); 18 U.S.C.
USCA11 Case: 22-14281 Document: 17-1 Date Filed: 05/03/2023 Page: 3 of 3
22-14281 Opinion of the Court 3
§§ 3559(a)(3), 3583(b)(2). Thus, under § 3583(h), the district court
was not authorized to impose a total sentence in excess of 36
months. However, the district court imposed a 13-month term of
imprisonment, followed by 24 months of supervised release, a total
of 37 months—1 month greater than the statutory maximum. Ac-
cordingly, the district court plainly erred by over-sentencing Rol-
ley. United States v. Moore, 22 F.4th 1258, 1265 (11th Cir. 2022)
(holding a term of supervised release that exceeds the statutory
maximum amount is plain error); United States v. Ramirez-Flores,
743 F.3d 816, 821 (11th Cir. 2014) (reviewing for plain error when
a litigant does not raise an argument before the district court in a
criminal proceeding).
Because the parties’ position is clearly correct as a matter of
law, we GRANT the joint motion for summary reversal. Groen-
dyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1161-62 (5th Cir. 1969) 1
(stating summary disposition is appropriate where “the position of
one of the parties is clearly right as a matter of law so that there can
be no substantial question as to the outcome of the case . . . .”).
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
1 In Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc),
this Court adopted as binding precedent all decisions of the former Fifth Cir-
cuit handed down prior to close of business on September 30, 1981.