United States v. Corey Wooley, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 1122

Wooley was sentenced to 30 months for probation violation; district court believed he had a cocaine problem and sought treatment as a rehabilitation goal.
Probation initially imposed in 2009; later violations in 2012 prompted revocation hearing and increased sentence.
District court referenced Wooley's drug problem and treated treatment as purpose of incarceration, exceeding guideline range.
Wooley objected to the sentence as raising Tapia v. United States issues; counsel objected to the upward variance.
We vacate the sentence and remand for resentencing consistent with Tapia’s prohibition on using imprisonment to promote rehabilitation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Tapia error occurred in sentencing.	Wooley	Wooley	Yes; dominant rehabilitation motive invalidates sentence
Whether Tapia error preserved on appeal.	Wooley	Wooley	Not preserved; plain error review applies
Whether Tapia error affected Wooley's substantial rights.	Wooley	Wooley	Yes; substantial rights affected due to 30-month variance
Whether the appropriate remedy is vacate and remand.	Wooley	Wooley	Vacate and remand for resentencing in light of Tapia

Tapia v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 2382 (2011) (prohibits imprisoning to promote rehabilitation)
United States v. Garza, 706 F.3d 655 (5th Cir. 2013) (Tapia error when rehabilitation dominates sentencing)
United States v. Culbertson, 712 F.3d 235 (5th Cir. 2013) (dominant rehabilitation factor triggers Tapia error)
United States v. Broussard, 669 F.3d 537 (5th Cir. 2012) (Tapia error where rehabilitation needs influence sentence)
United States v. Escalante-Reyes, 689 F.3d 415 (5th Cir. 2012) (Tapia error when emphasis on rehabilitation undercuts factors)
United States v. Receskey, 699 F.3d 807 (5th Cir. 2012) (mere suggestion of rehabilitation without dominant factor is not Tapia error)
United States v. Tatum, 512 F. App’x 402 (5th Cir. 2013) (Tapia error analysis varies with specificity of objection)