United States v. Aaron Lamar Hollins
664 F. App'x 779
| 11th Cir. | 2016Background
- Hollins was convicted of Hobbs Act robbery (18 U.S.C. § 1951(a)) and a § 924(c) firearm offense and originally received concurrent terms of supervised release for each count.
- After violations (failed drug tests; failure to complete treatment), the district court revoked supervised release and imposed a single additional 4‑year term of supervised release.
- A 4‑year term exceeds the statutory maximum (3 years) for a Class C felony (Hobbs Act) but does not exceed the maximum for the § 924(c) offense (Class A felony has 5 years supervised release max).
- Hollins did not raise the issue in district court and thus appealed for the first time, asserting the district court plainly erred by imposing a general (undivided) supervised‑release term that exceeded the Hobbs Act maximum.
- The Eleventh Circuit reviewed de novo the legality of revocation sentences but applied plain‑error review because Hollins raised the challenge for the first time on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether imposing a single 4‑year (general) term of supervised release on revocation is illegal because it exceeds the statutory 3‑year maximum for the Hobbs Act count | Hollins: the court plainly erred by imposing a general additional supervised‑release term that exceeded the statutory maximum for the Hobbs Act conviction | Government: revocation sentencing is governed by Chapter 7 of the Guidelines; §5G1.2 and the rule against general sentences for initial judgments do not clearly apply to revocation proceedings | Court: No plain error — statutes, Guidelines, and precedent do not clearly prohibit a general additional supervised‑release term on revocation; affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Moriarty, 429 F.3d 1012 (11th Cir. 2005) (general sentences in final judgments are per se illegal)
- United States v. Mazarky, 499 F.3d 1246 (11th Cir. 2007) (de novo review of legality of revocation sentences)
- United States v. Quinones, 136 F.3d 1293 (11th Cir. 1998) (Chapter 7 governs revocation sentences; §5G1.2 requirements don't limit revocation discretion)
- United States v. Lejarde‑Rada, 319 F.3d 1288 (11th Cir. 2003) (plain‑error requires precedent or statutory clarity to establish error)
- Aguilar‑Ibarra v. United States, 740 F.3d 592 (11th Cir. 2014) (discussing plain‑error standards in revocation/sentencing context)