US v. Manuel Page

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:04-cr-00155-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998758085].. [11-4646]

Appeal: 11-4646

Document: 25

Date Filed: 01/05/2012

Page: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED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Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 11-4646

Document: 25

Date Filed: 01/05/2012

Page: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Manuel
firearm

as

a

L.

Page

convicted

§ 922(g)(1) (2006).

was

found

felon,

guilty

in

of

possessing

violation

of

18

a

U.S.C.

The court sentenced Page to eighty-four

months’ imprisonment and three years’ supervised release.
Court affirmed the conviction and sentence.

This

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.
conditions
Page’s

of

his

supervised

Shortly thereafter, Page violated several
supervised

release.

release
He

was

and

the

sentenced

court
to

revoked

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

supervised
However,

imprisonment,

release.

upon

defense

18

followed

U.S.C.

counsel’s

by

twenty-two

§ 3583(e)(3),
request,

the

(h)

months’
(2006).

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

Appeal: 11-4646

Document: 25

Date Filed: 01/05/2012

Page: 3 of 3

plainly unreasonable because, among other reasons, it exceeds
the

maximum

concedes

possible

that

the

sentence

district

by

one

court

day.

The

committed

Government

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:

made;

(1)

an

error

was

(2)

the

error

(3) the error affects substantial rights.”
Because
sentence

at

the

the

district

statutory

court

maximum,

is

plain;

and

Id., at 342-43.
originally

once

it

imposed

increased

a

Page’s

imprisonment sentence by one day, it was required to decrease
Page’s

term

of

supervised

§ 3583(e)(3) and (h).
plain error.

release

by

one

day.

18

U.S.C.

The district court’s failure to do so is

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.
dispense

with

oral

argument

because

the

facts

and

We

legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

VACATED AND REMANDED
3