United States v. Del Valle-Rodriguez, 761 F.3d 171

Defendant Alberto Omar Del Valle‑Rodríguez pleaded guilty to taking a motor vehicle by force (18 U.S.C. § 2119) after a 2012 carjacking in Puerto Rico; a separate § 924(c) count was dismissed under the plea agreement.
The district court calculated a total offense level of 23 and a criminal history category V, yielding a Guidelines Sentencing Range (GSR) of 84–105 months (unchallenged on appeal).
The court imposed an upwardly variant prison term of 120 months; defendant appealed only the sentence (not the guideline calculations).
On appeal defendant argued (1) the district court impermissibly relied on his drug addiction/rehabilitative needs in setting an above‑range sentence (invoking Tapia v. United States), and (2) the upward variance was unreasonable because the court relied on factors already accounted for in the GSR.
The sentencing transcript shows the court emphasized defendant’s extensive criminal history, repeated probation violations, misleading probation officers, and high risk of recidivism as the basis for the upward variance.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court impermissibly relied on defendant's rehabilitative needs (Tapia claim)	Appellant: district court relied on his drug addiction/need for rehabilitation to lengthen the sentence	Government: court’s references were not causally tied to sentence length and addressed risk/recidivism, not rehabilitation	No Tapia error: mere mention of addiction/supervision is not error absent evidence rehabilitation drove the sentence
Whether the upward variance was unreasonable (abuse of discretion)	Appellant: variance double‑counted factors already reflected in the GSR and court failed to distinguish this case from the guideline heartland	Government: district court adequately explained that defendant’s criminal history underrepresented his risk and recidivism justified a modest upward variance	No abuse of discretion: court gave a plausible, adequately articulated rationale to distinguish the case and justify the 120‑month sentence

Tapia v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 2382 (2011) (court may not lengthen incarceration to promote rehabilitation but may discuss prison programs)
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (reasonableness review of sentencing; guidelines are starting point)
United States v. Lifshitz, 714 F.3d 146 (2d Cir. 2013) (no Tapia error where rehabilitation mention did not determine sentence length)
United States v. Garza, 706 F.3d 655 (5th Cir. 2013) (Tapia error where rehabilitative needs were dominant factor in sentence)
United States v. Cordery, 656 F.3d 1103 (10th Cir. 2011) (Tapia error where sentence length was imposed to make defendant eligible for a program)
United States v. Zapete‑Garcia, 447 F.3d 57 (1st Cir. 2006) (upward variance based on ordinarily accounted‑for factors requires explanation distinguishing the case)
United States v. Politano, 522 F.3d 69 (1st Cir. 2008) (GSR may understate recidivism risk and justify variance)
United States v. Flores‑Machicote, 706 F.3d 16 (1st Cir. 2013) (upward variance must be justified; appellate deference to sentencing court)