United States v. Cynthia Lemon
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 1033
| 4th Cir. | 2015Background
- Cynthia Lemon pleaded guilty in 2008 to conspiracy to defraud the United States (forged securities), received 30 months’ imprisonment and three years’ supervised release.
- Five months into supervised release (2013) she was arrested for multiple supervision violations, including forging checks; a revocation report produced a Guidelines range of 21–24 months.
- Lemon filed no objections; the probation officer and the Government recommended 24 months; defense sought time served or, alternatively, 1 year and 1 day (the co-defendant’s sentence).
- The district court revoked supervised release and imposed 24 months’ imprisonment, then commented about Lemon’s apparent mental-health issues and recommended mental-health counseling in BOP.
- Lemon appealed, arguing (for the first time) that the court violated Tapia by considering rehabilitation when setting the length of her revocation sentence; the Fourth Circuit reviewed for plain error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court committed plain Tapia error by considering rehabilitation when setting the revocation sentence | Lemon: the judge’s post‑sentence remarks show the sentence length was chosen to provide mental‑health treatment, violating Tapia | Government/District Court: remarks reflect awareness of rehabilitative benefits but did not causally influence the sentence length; sentence based on reoffending, public protection, criminal history | No plain error: court’s remarks did not clearly show rehabilitation was the cause of the sentence length; sentencing was motivated by deterrence, punishment, and public protection |
Key Cases Cited
- Tapia v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 2382 (2011) (holding courts may not impose or lengthen prison to promote rehabilitation)
- United States v. Alston, 722 F.3d 603 (4th Cir.) (distinguishing permissible comments about rehabilitation from impermissible reliance on rehabilitation to set sentence)
- United States v. Bennett, 698 F.3d 194 (4th Cir.) (finding Tapia error where court said sentence provided time for treatment)
- United States v. Del Valle-Rodriguez, 761 F.3d 171 (1st Cir.) (analyzing causal link between rehabilitation comments and sentence length)
- United States v. Kubeczko, 660 F.3d 260 (7th Cir.) (finding Tapia error where sentence length tied to duration needed for treatment)
- United States v. Vandergrift, 754 F.3d 1303 (11th Cir.) (finding error where court considered what was best for defendant and that prison would provide needed treatment)
- United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (1993) (plain‑error review standard)
- United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572 (4th Cir.) (elements of plain‑error review)