United States v. Honore

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT September 26, 2003
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 03-30292
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
STEVEN M. HONORE,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
USDC No. 98-CR-133-ALL-S
--------------------
Before SMITH, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Steven M. Honore appeals his 24-month sentence imposed
following the revocation of his supervised release. Honore was
initially convicted of three drug-trafficking offenses and was
sentenced to 24-month terms of imprisonment to be followed by
three-year terms of supervised release. Following an initial
revocation of his term of supervised release, Honore was sentenced
to a term of imprisonment of eight months. Honore’s supervised
release was again revoked, and the district court imposed a
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
sentence of 24 months.
Honore argues that the district court plainly erred in
imposing a 24-month sentence following the second revocation
because he had already served eight months in connection with the
first revocation of his probation.
The Government concedes that in light of United States
v. Jackson, 329 F.3d 406 (5th Cir. 2003), which was decided after
Honore was sentenced, the statutory maximum sentence for revocation
of supervised release must be applied on a cumulative basis and
that the 24-month sentence imposed by the district court exceeded
that statutory maximum. Under Jackson, the maximum sentence of
imprisonment that the district court could impose was 16 months.
329 F.3d at 407. Thus, the district court plainly erred in
imposing the 24-month sentence. See United States v. Olano, 507
U.S. 725, 732 (1993).
The sentence imposed by the district court is VACATED, and the
case is REMANDED for resentencing in light of Jackson.
VACATE SENTENCE AND REMAND FOR RESENTENCING.
G:\opin-sc\03-30292.opn.wpd 2