United States v. Edward D. Boatman, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 8037

Background

Edward Boatman pleaded guilty to one count of bank robbery under 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) for a 2012 robbery in which he threatened a teller and took about $334.50.
Probation deemed him a career offender, producing a Guidelines offense level of 29 and criminal-history category VI; without career-offender it would have been offense level 21 and category III (46–57 months).
Boatman sought a sentence of time served (~24 months) plus community-based drug treatment, submitting an addiction-counselor report and empirical studies supporting treatment over incarceration.
The district court held two hearings; after the government alerted the court to Tapia (prohibiting lengthening a sentence to allow completion of a treatment program), the court rescinded reliance on the BOP Residential Drug Abuse Program when setting term.
The court imposed a below-Guidelines sentence of 76 months imprisonment and three years supervised release, explained its consideration of § 3553(a) factors, and recommended the Bureau of Prisons consider therapeutic alternatives.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court procedurally erred by failing to give meaningful consideration to Boatman’s request for time served and community-based drug treatment	Boatman: court did not adequately address his individualized mitigation evidence and empirical studies supporting treatment, so its explanation was insufficient	Government: court considered the submissions, was constrained by Tapia, and properly weighed § 3553(a) factors in denying time served	Court: No procedural error; judge sufficiently considered and weighed Boatman’s arguments and explained why retribution and incapacitation outweighed treatment request
Whether it was improper to continue the hearing and rely on supplemental memoranda (including Tapia)	Boatman: mixed signals across two hearing days clouded the basis for the sentence	Government: continuance and supplemental briefing were appropriate; Tapia controlled that sentence length cannot be tied to program completion	Court: Continuance permissible; analysis rests on April 22 statements and there was no prejudice requiring vacatur
Whether the judge improperly relied on clearly erroneous facts or failed to consider § 3553(a) factors	Boatman: judge didn’t specifically address the mitigation expert’s report and studies	Government: judge touched on the relevant § 3553(a) factors and expressly stated he considered mitigation materials	Court: Judge addressed nature of offense, history, need for punishment/incapacitation, and alternatives; explanation adequate
Whether the ultimate below-Guidelines sentence was substantively unreasonable	Boatman: treatment-focused, lower sentence would better reduce recidivism	Government: seriousness of bank robbery and threat justified longer imprisonment	Court: Sentence within court’s discretion and reasonable given the weight the judge afforded retribution and incapacitation

Key Cases Cited

Tapia v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 2382 (2011) (district courts may not lengthen a prison term to enable completion of a treatment program)
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (standard for review of sentencing decisions and requirement to consider § 3553(a))
Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (2007) (courts may rely on Guidelines as one of § 3553(a) considerations)
United States v. Scott, 555 F.3d 605 (7th Cir. 2009) (procedural vs. substantive review of sentences)
United States v. Schmitz, 717 F.3d 536 (7th Cir. 2013) (district courts should discuss significant mitigation arguments)
United States v. Vidal, 705 F.3d 742 (7th Cir. 2013) (remand required when court’s remarks give no insight into evaluation of psychiatric mitigation)
United States v. Miranda, 505 F.3d 785 (7th Cir. 2007) (brief mention of mental illness insufficient to show consideration)
United States v. Grigsby, 692 F.3d 778 (7th Cir. 2012) (reiterating adequacy standards for sentencing explanations)