and Submitted July 10, 2018 San Francisco, California
from the United States District Court for the District of
Arizona Cindy K. Jorgenson, District Judge, Presiding D.C.
Before: Susan P. Graber and Richard C. Tallman, Circuit
Judges, and Ivan L.R. Lemelle, [*] Senior District Judge.
L.R. LEMELLE, SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE.
Defendant-Appellant D.A.T. appeals the district court's
imposition of a 34-month term of official detention following
revocation of Appellant's juvenile delinquent
supervision. Appellant argues that his term of official
detention exceeded the statutory maximum established in 18
U.S.C. § 5037(d)(5). Because we agree, we vacate the
sentence and remand with instructions that the district court
order Appellant's immediate release.
BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
August 2009, when Appellant was 15 years old, he and two
other individuals killed R.O. on the Tohono O'odham
Nation. Appellant was arrested by tribal authorities and
remained in tribal custody until he was transferred to
federal custody in June 2012, shortly after the government
charged Appellant with first degree murder in a one count
information. In January 2013, Appellant reached a plea
agreement with the government and pled guilty to
second-degree murder, as charged in an amended information.
The statutory maximum sentence was five years of official
detention. See 18 U.S.C. § 5037(c)(2)(A). On
April 2, 2013, the district court sentenced Appellant to 28
months of official detention, followed by juvenile delinquent
supervision until Appellant's 21st birthday.
was released from detention on June 25, 2014, at the age of
20. But in November 2014, a warrant was issued for
Appellant's arrest because he violated the conditions of
his juvenile delinquent supervision. As part of a Juvenile
Revocation Disposition Agreement with the government,
Appellant admitted to two violations of his juvenile
delinquent supervision conditions- commission of various
crimes and use of controlled substances. In October 2015, the
district court revoked Appellant's juvenile delinquent
supervision and sentenced him to nine months of official
detention for each violation, to be served consecutively,
followed by 42 months of juvenile delinquent supervision.
was released from detention on July 29, 2016, at the age of
22. In September 2016, a second warrant was issued for
Appellant's arrest, again because Appellant violated the
conditions of his juvenile delinquent supervision. In April
2017, Appellant admitted to two violations (failure to notify
probation of contact with law enforcement and consumption of
alcoholic beverages) without a plea agreement. In May 2017,
the district court revoked Appellant's juvenile
delinquent supervision and sentenced him to 34 months of
official detention for each violation, to be served
concurrently, with no term of juvenile delinquent supervision
to follow. Appellant did not object at the hearing, but
timely appealed his sentence.
AND STANDARD OF REVIEW
district court had jurisdiction over Appellant's
revocation proceeding pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 3231
and 5031-5037. We have appellate jurisdiction pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742.
parties disagree about whether we should review de novo or
for plain error. Regardless of which standard applies, the
sentence imposed exceeded the maximum permitted by
appeal presents a question of statutory interpretation. The
Federal Juvenile Delinquency Act (FJDA) governs the
adjudication of juvenile delinquency in federal courts.
See 18 U.S.C. §§ 5031-5042. When a
district court finds a juvenile to be a juvenile delinquent,
the FJDA empowers the district court to impose a term of
official detention, followed by a term of juvenile delinquent
supervision. See id. § 5037(a), (c), (d). The
FJDA also empowers the district court to revoke juvenile
delinquent supervision if a juvenile violates a condition of
supervision, and to impose a new term of official detention.
See id. § 5037(d)(5). In this appeal, the
parties dispute the maximum term of official detention that
can be imposed upon ...