United States v. Breland
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 14738
| 5th Cir. | 2011Background
- Breland was convicted in 2008 on multiple counts related to FEMA disaster-relief fraud; he began supervised release in 2010.
- Probation officer alleged violations including reporting failures, address changes, missed drug-treatment sessions, and unpaid restitution.
- District court revoked Breland's supervised release and sentenced him to 35 months imprisonment with three years of supervised release, aiming to place him in a 500-hour drug-treatment program.
- Raymond testified that the 35-month term would qualify Breland for BOP's 500-hour program; district court approved the program availability.
- Breland appeals challenging procedural and substantive reasonableness of the revocation sentence, arguing rehabilitative goals were impermissibly sole basis under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(a).
- Court analysis centers on whether rehabilitative needs may be considered in post-revocation sentencing under § 3583(e)/(g) and governing precedent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 3582(a) bars considering rehabilitation at post-revocation sentencing. | Breland argues rehab cannot justify imprisonment length. | Breland contends § 3582(a) precludes rehab-based lengthening. | Yes; § 3582(a) does not apply to post-revocation sentencing under § 3583. |
| Whether the court properly considered § 3553(a) factors in revocation sentence. | Breland contends court relied on impermissible rehab motive. | Government argues factors including rehab were considered. | Court properly considered § 3553(a) factors and rehabilitative needs. |
| Whether the revocation sentence is procedurally reasonable given evidence about the drug-treatment program. | Breland claims lack of reliable program information. | Court relied on probation officer discussions about program availability. | No plain error; information supported program availability. |
| Whether the substantive grant of a 35-month sentence is reasonable given Guideline ranges and concurrency. | Sentence exceeds advisory range for concurrent terms. | Court may impose consecutive terms; below Guideline range is presumptively reasonable. | Sentence within the court’s discretionary authority and is reasonable. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Giddings, 37 F.3d 1091 (5th Cir.1994) (permits considering rehabilitative factors in post-revocation length; applicable to discretionary/mandatory revocation via § 3583)
- United States v. Anderson, 15 F.3d 278 (2d Cir.1994) (rehabilitative needs may be considered in determining length of supervised release and post-revocation restraints)
- United States v. Doe, 617 F.3d 766 (3d Cir.2010) ( § 3582(a) limits on rehab-based sentencing not controlling post-revocation)
- United States v. Tsosie, 376 F.3d 1210 (10th Cir.2004) (affirms consideration of § 3553(a)(2)(D) in post-revocation sentencing)
- United States v. Brown, 224 F.3d 1237 (11th Cir.2000) (post-revocation sentencing authority to consider rehab factors)
- United States v. Jackson, 70 F.3d 874 (6th Cir.1995) (recognizes revocation context and rehab factor consideration)
- United States v. Thornell, 128 F.3d 687 (8th Cir.1997) (post-revocation sentencing authority with rehab considerations)
- United States v. Yehuda, 238 F. App'x 712 (2d Cir.2007) (unpublished; limited persuasive weight; caution on program-based reasoning)