United States v. Derrick Walker, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 2421

Walker pleaded guilty in July 2010 to possession of material involving sexual exploitation of minors and received time served plus seven years of supervised release.
The district court revoked Walker’s supervised release in March 2011 for disruptive behavior and resentenced him to three months’ imprisonment and five years’ supervised release.
In July 2012 Walker admitted violating the supervised release conditions; government agreed to a nine-month imprisonment, with no supervised release, and the magistrate recommended the same.
The district court indicated reluctance to follow that recommendation, citing Walker’s repeated violations despite leniency, and sentenced Walker to the statutory maximum of 24 months in prison.
After sentencing, the court initially imposed five years of supervised release, but later reduced it to two years of supervised release.
Walker appealed, challenging whether the district court improperly considered rehabilitation in violation of Tapia and Garza, and arguing plain error due to the excessive focus on rehabilitation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether rehabilitation can be a factor in revocation sentencing.	Walker argues rehabilitation dominated the decision, violating Tapia/Garza.	District court adequately considered §3553(a) factors with rehabilitation as a secondary justification.	No plain error; rehabilitation was not the dominant factor.
Whether the district court's reliance on rehabilitation violated Tapia/Garza standards.	Use of rehabilitation to lengthen sentence violates Tapia and Garza.	Rehabilitation can be a secondary consideration, not a sole basis.	Not error; Tapia/Garza applied but not violated.
Whether the district court properly weighed §3553(a) factors and the advisory guidelines.	Court should have followed the nine-month guideline range focused sentencing.	The court can consider §3553(a) factors, including history, deterrence, and seriousness.	Court did not abuse discretion; factors supported the sentence.
Whether the error, if any, affected Walker's substantial rights or the fairness of the proceedings.	Plain error affected rights by shifting focus to rehabilitation.	Any error was not clear or obvious and did not affect substantial rights.	No plain error; the sentence was affirmed.

Garza, Garza v. United States, 706 F.3d 655 (5th Cir. 2013) (rehabilitation cannot be dominant factor in sentencing; Tapia applies to revocation)
Tapia v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 2382 (Supreme Court 2011) (cannot impose or lengthen prison to enable participation in treatment)
United States v. Miller, 634 F.3d 841 (5th Cir. 2011) (plain-error framework for revocation sentences)
United States v. Mathena, 23 F.3d 87 (5th Cir. 1994) (statutory factors and policy statements guide revocation sentences)
Garza, Garza v. United States, 706 F.3d 657 (5th Cir. 2013) (rehabilitation as secondary justification allowed; dominant factor prohibited)