2 . Under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i), the minimum term of imprisonment for using a firearm during a crime of violence, the offense for which Smith was originally convicted, is five years. This minimum term results in Smith’s offense being a class D felony classification, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3559(a)(4). Where a defendant’s underlying offense is a class D felony, the defendant may not serve more than two years of imprisonment based on revocation of his supervised release. 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3). Therefore, because Smith had been sentenced to 9 months of imprisonment for his first revocation of his supervised release, his remaining maximum imprisonment term was 15 months on re-revocation. See R5 at 6; see also United States v. Williams, 425 F.3d 987, 989 (11th Cir.2005) (per curiam) (<HOLDING>). 3 . On appeal, Smith does not challenge the
holding that reasonableness review applies to a sentence imposed upon a revocation of supervised release holding that invitederror doctrine precludes defendant from challenging sentence of supervised release where defendant requested sentence of supervised release holding that failure to explain the effect of a term of supervised release was harmless error where term of imprisonment combined with maximum imprisonment for violation of supervised release was still less than statutory maximum holding that further supervised release may be ordered as a sentence for violation of supervised release recognizing that statutory maximums of  3583e3 apply in the aggregate and that where a defendant had previously been sentenced to oneyear and oneday imprisonment upon revocation of his supervised release the district court could sentence the defendant to only 364 days of imprisonment upon rerevocation of his supervised release