United States v. Simmons

Eleventh Circuit

United States v. Simmons

686 F. App'x 718

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

DecidedApril 24, 2017

DocketNo. 14-11335 Non-Argument Calendar

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 686 F. App'x 718 (United States v. Simmons) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. Simmons, 686 F. App'x 718 (11th Cir. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Russell Simmons, Jr. appeals the district court’s imposition of three years of supervised release for his identity theft conviction (Count 24) under 18 U.S.C. § 1028A(a)(l). The government concedes the imposition of a three-year term of supervised release for that conviction was plain error, see Government’s Br. at 4, and we agree. Our review of that error, which resulted in a term of supervised release greater than the one-year statutory maximum for aggravated identify theft, establishes that reversal is required. See, e.g., United States v. Sanchez, 586 F.3d 918, 930 (11th Cir. 2009) (holding that where a sentence exceeds the statutory maximum, plain error exists and needs to be corrected because it affects the defendant’s substantial rights as well as the fairness, integrity, and public reputation of the judicial proceedings). We therefore vacate the sentence on Count 24 and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

VACATED AND REMANDED AS TO COUNT 24.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

Russell Simmons, Jr. appeals the district court’s imposition of three years of supervised release for his identity theft conviction (Count 24) under 18 U.S.C. § 1028A(a)(l). The government concedes the imposition of a three-year term of supervised release for that conviction was plain error, see Government’s Br. at 4, and we agree. Our review of that error, which resulted in a term of supervised release greater than the one-year statutory maximum for aggravated identify theft, establishes that reversal is required. See, e.g., United States v. Sanchez, 586 F.3d 918, 930 (11th Cir. 2009) (holding that where a sentence exceeds the statutory maximum, plain error exists and needs to be corrected because it affects the defendant’s substantial rights as well as the fairness, integrity, and public reputation of the judicial proceedings). We therefore vacate the sentence on Count 24 and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

VACATED AND REMANDED AS TO COUNT 24.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

686 F. App'x 718, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-simmons-ca11-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack