United States v. Cordery
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 18037
| 10th Cir. | 2011Background
- Cordery pled guilty to armed bank robbery under 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) and (d).
- Guidelines recommended 51–63 months; district court considered rehabilitative needs and RDAP eligibility in sentencing.
- Court asked counsel about RDAP and mental health treatment; counsel supported RDAP.
- District court imposed 56-month sentence, citing deterrence, seriousness, and RDAP eligibility to complete program with treatment.
- Court believed a 56-month term was necessary to allow RDAP participation, as trial record suggested RDAP minimums.
- Cordery appealed, arguing § 3582(a) prohibits using rehabilitation to determine term length; issue framed as plain error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court violated § 3582(a) by basing the sentence length on rehabilitation goals. | Cordery argues rehabilitation cannot determine incarceration length. | United States contends discretion to consider RDAP is consistent with § 3553(a) and related standards. | Sentence length based on rehabilitation was error; remanded for resentencing. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Story, 635 F.3d 1241 (10th Cir. 2011) (rehabilitative goals cannot determine term length under § 3582(a))
- Tapia v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 2382 (2011) (SCOTUS confirms Story interpretation)
- United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (U.S. 1993) (plain error requires error to be clear under current law)
- Gonzalez-Huerta v. United States, 403 F.3d 727 (10th Cir. 2005) (plain error framework for appellate review of sentencing)
- Meacham v. United States, 567 F.3d 1184 (10th Cir. 2009) (plain error analysis applied to sentencing decisions)
- United States v. Mendoza, 543 F.3d 1186 (10th Cir. 2008) (timing of plain-error assessment in sentencing context)