Case: 15-11270 Date Filed: 10/25/2016 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 15-11270
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 8:14-cr-00388-MSS-AEP-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
MATTHEW WILLIAM MCLEAN,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(October 25, 2016)
Before WILLIAM PRYOR, JORDAN and ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Matthew McLean appeals his sentence to a term of supervised release for
life for committing a felony sex offense while required to register as a sex
Case: 15-11270 Date Filed: 10/25/2016 Page: 2 of 3
offender. 18 U.S.C. § 2260A. The district court ordered that McLean’s term of
supervised release run concurrently with a sentence to supervised release for life
for attempting to transport a minor with the intent to engage in a sexual activity, id.
§ 2423(e). McLean argues, for the first time, that his registration offense was a
Class C felony, see id. §§ 2260A, 3559(a), for which he faced a maximum
statutory penalty of three years of supervised release, see id. § 3583(b)(2). We
affirm.
Even if the district court erred by imposing a term of supervised release for
life for McLean’s registration offense, that error did not warrant relief under the
plain error rule. The error did not affect McLean’s substantial rights because his
term of supervised release remained the same regardless of the error. See United
States v. Cartwright, 413 F.3d 1295, 1300–01 (11th Cir. 2005) (“[P]lain error
affects . . . substantial rights . . . [only if] the error actually did make a difference.”
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). McLean concedes that the district
court committed no error in sentencing him to a term of supervised release for life
for his offense under section 2423(e). McLean argues that he could face “up to two
years [of imprisonment] . . . [s]hould” the district court revoke his supervised
release, but “where the effect of an error on the result in the district court is
uncertain or indeterminate—where we would have to speculate—the appellant has
not met his burden of showing . . . that his substantial rights have been affected,”
2
Case: 15-11270 Date Filed: 10/25/2016 Page: 3 of 3
United States v. Rodriguez, 398 F.3d 1291, 1301 (11th Cir. 2005).
We AFFIRM McLean’s sentence.
3