USA v. Tahji Alonzo Orr

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 23-13945
Non-Argument Calendar
____________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
TAHJI ALONZO ORR,
Defendant-Appellant.
____________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Alabama
D.C. Docket No. 2:22-cr-00218-MHH-GMB-1
____________________
USCA11 Case: 23-13945 Document: 20-1 Date Filed: 05/14/2024 Page: 1 of 5

-- 1 of 5 --

2 Opinion of the Court 23-13945
Before JILL PRYOR , BRASHER , and A BUDU , Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Tahji Alonzo Orr appeals his 96-month sentence, which the
district court imposed after he pled guilty via a plea agreement to
three counts in an indictment. Orr and the government agree that
the district court erroneously imposed a sentence above the statu-
tory maximum as to one count and have jointly moved for sum-
mary reversal. We grant their motion.
Orr pled guilty to possession of marijuana with intent to dis-
tribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(D) (Count One);
possession of heroin and fentanyl, in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C) (Count Two); and possession of a ma-
chinegun, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(o) (Count Four). Count
One carried a 5-year statutory maximum term of imprisonment,
Count Two carried a 20-year statutory maximum, and Count Four
carried a 10-year statutory maximum. In the plea agreement, Orr
and the government stipulated to a total sentence of 96 months’
imprisonment, a stipulation that was binding under Federal Rule
of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(C). At sentencing, the district court,
without referencing the statutory maximum terms of imprison-
ment for each count, imposed a prison sentence “for a term of 96
months as to counts one, two, and four, separately, with each count
to be served concurrently with the other.” Doc. 48 at 7–8; see Doc.
USCA11 Case: 23-13945 Document: 20-1 Date Filed: 05/14/2024 Page: 2 of 5

-- 2 of 5 --

23-13945 Opinion of the Court 3
37 at 2.1 Orr appealed, and this motion followed. The parties agree
that the district court plainly erred in imposing a 96-month term of
imprisonment for Count One, despite the statutory maximum of
60 months for Count One. See 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(D).
As relevant here, summary disposition is appropriate where
“the position of one of the parties is clearly right as a matter of law
so that there can be no substantial question as to the outcome of
the case.” Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1161–62
(5th Cir. 1969).2
We usually review de novo the legality of a sentence. United
States v. Moriarty, 429 F.3d 1012, 1023 (11th Cir. 2005). But where,
as here, a defendant fails to object to the sentence’s legality before
the district court, we review only for plain error. Id. We find plain
error only when: (1) an error has occurred, (2) the error was plain,
(3) the error affected the defendant’s substantial rights, and (4) the
error seriously affected the fairness of the judicial proceedings.
United States v. Malone, 51 F.4th 1311, 1319 (11th Cir. 2022). “A de-
fendant’s substantial rights are affected if the error affected the out-
come of the district court proceedings.” Id. (internal quotation
marks omitted).
1 “Doc.” numbers are the district court’s docket entries.
2 In Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc), we
adopted as binding precedent all decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed
down prior to October 1, 1981.
USCA11 Case: 23-13945 Document: 20-1 Date Filed: 05/14/2024 Page: 3 of 5

-- 3 of 5 --

4 Opinion of the Court 23-13945
A sentence exceeding the statutory maximum for a given of-
fense is an illegal sentence. United States v. Cobbs, 967 F.2d 1555,
1557–58 (11th Cir. 1992). An illegal sentence affects a defendant’s
substantial rights and seriously affects the fairness of the judicial
proceedings. United States v. Sanchez, 586 F.3d 918, 930 (11th Cir.
2009); see also United States v. Eldick, 393 F.3d 1354, 1354 & n.1 (11th
Cir. 2004) (vacating a sentence exceeding the statutory maximum
and noting that such a sentence constitutes plain error). By sentenc-
ing Orr to a sentence of 96 months’ imprisonment on Count One
when the statutory maximum sentence for Count One was 60
months, the district court imposed an illegal sentence.
In light of this error, we remand for resentencing. “[W]e
have adopted a holistic approach to resentencing, treating a crimi-
nal sentence as a package of sanctions that may be fully revisited
upon resentencing.” United States v. Martinez, 606 F.3d 1303, 1304
(11th Cir. 2010) (emphasis omitted) (internal citation and quotation
marks omitted). This approach, often called the sentencing pack-
age doctrine, is grounded in the notion that, “especially in the [Sen-
tencing G]uidelines era, sentencing on multiple counts is an inher-
ently interrelated, interconnected, and holistic process which re-
quires a court to craft an overall sentence—the ‘sentence pack-
age’—that reflects the guidelines and the relevant [18 U.S.C.]
§ 3553(a) factors.” United States v. Fowler, 749 F.3d 1010, 1015 (11th
Cir. 2014). So, when a conviction or sentence for one or more of
the component counts is vacated, the district court “should be free
to reconstruct the sentencing package . . . to ensure that the overall
sentence remains consistent with the guidelines, the § 3553(a)
USCA11 Case: 23-13945 Document: 20-1 Date Filed: 05/14/2024 Page: 4 of 5

-- 4 of 5 --

23-13945 Opinion of the Court 5
factors, and the court’s view concerning the proper sentence in
light of all the circumstances.” Id. (relating to vacatur of a convic-
tion); see United States v. Pearson, 940 F.3d 1210, 1215 n.10 (11th Cir.
2019) (relating to vacatur of a sentence); United States v. Yost, 185
F.3d 1178, 1181 (11th Cir. 1999) (same).
Because the parties’ position is clearly correct as a matter of
law, we GRANT the joint motion for summary reversal. See Groen-
dyke Transp., Inc., 406 F.2d at 1162. We remand for the district court
to resentence Orr.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
USCA11 Case: 23-13945 Document: 20-1 Date Filed: 05/14/2024 Page: 5 of 5

-- 5 of 5 --