United States v. Darren Quesada, 676 F. App'x 726

Defendant Darren Quesada appealed a sentence of 3 years imprisonment and 136 months of supervised release after supervised-release violations and related offenses.
The district court imposed an upward departure from the Guidelines range, citing repeated violations, prior revocations, and risk to the community.
Defense argued the sentence unlawfully aimed to place Quesada in prison long enough to obtain in-custody treatment (raising Tapia concerns) and challenged eight supervised-release conditions as vague/overbroad.
The district court explained the sentence was to punish significant breaches of trust and protect the public, and discussed (but did not base the sentence on) prison-based treatment opportunities.
The Ninth Circuit affirmed the sentence and the supervised-release conditions, but remanded solely to reconcile a discrepancy between the oral pronouncement and the written judgment for Special Condition Six.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the sentence violated Tapia by being imposed to ensure in-custody treatment eligibility	Government: sentence was imposed for punishment and public protection, not to secure treatment	Quesada: court sentenced him to enable participation in prison treatment, violating Tapia	No Tapia violation; court did not sentence to ensure treatment eligibility and only discussed rehabilitation opportunities
Substantive reasonableness of sentence length	Government: sentence justified by history, revocations, danger to community	Quesada: sentence was excessive	Affirmed as reasonable given repeated similar offenses, prior revocations, and danger to community supporting upward departure
Validity of eight supervised-release conditions	Government: conditions relate to deterrence, protection, rehabilitation	Quesada: conditions vague/overbroad	Conditions upheld; not plain error given lack of controlling precedent and reasonable relationship to statutory goals
Whether written judgment must match oral pronouncement for Special Condition Six	Government: oral pronouncement controls; correct the written judgment	Quesada: sought consistency between oral and written terms	Remanded to district court to conform written judgment to the oral pronouncement

Tapia v. United States, 564 U.S. 319 (2011) (sentencing may not be imposed to ensure defendant receives in-custody rehabilitation)
United States v. Musa, 220 F.3d 1096 (9th Cir. 2000) (danger to community can support upward Guidelines departure)
United States v. Leonard, 483 F.3d 635 (9th Cir. 2007) (affirming sentence above Guidelines after supervised-release revocation for continued drug use)
United States v. Watson, 582 F.3d 974 (9th Cir. 2009) (supervised-release conditions must relate to deterrence, protection, or rehabilitation)
United States v. Gnirke, 775 F.3d 1155 (9th Cir. 2015) (plain-error review where no controlling precedent on condition vagueness/overbreadth)
United States v. Gonzalez-Aparicio, 663 F.3d 419 (9th Cir. 2011) (discussing standards for plain-error review of conditions)
United States v. Hicks, 997 F.2d 594 (9th Cir. 1993) (oral pronouncement of sentence controls over conflicting written judgment)