United States v. Galvin Henderson
669 F. App'x 817
| 8th Cir. | 2016Background
- Galvin Henderson admitted violating conditions of his supervised release; district court revoked release and sentenced him to 12 months’ imprisonment with no supervised release to follow.
- The advisory Guideline range for revocation was 7–13 months; the district court imposed a within-guidelines 12-month term.
- Henderson did not object at the revocation hearing that the court failed to consider 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors; he later appealed on that ground and as an abuse of discretion.
- The district court expressly stated it had considered the § 3553(a) factors and recommended nonresidential substance-abuse and mental-health treatment during incarceration.
- Henderson argued the court improperly relied on rehabilitation in sentencing, citing Tapia; the government maintained the court only recommended placement in treatment, which Tapia permits.
- The panel affirmed the sentence; a concurrence would have found a procedural error for insufficient explanation but concluded there was no plain-error prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court failed to consider § 3553(a) factors | Henderson: court did not adequately consider or explain § 3553(a) factors | Government: court expressly said it considered § 3553(a); judges are presumed to follow law | No plain error; district court said it considered § 3553(a) and sentence was within Guidelines, so explanation was sufficient |
| Whether sentence was substantively unreasonable/abuse of discretion | Henderson: court lengthened sentence to promote rehabilitation (impermissible under Tapia) | Government: court merely recommended treatment placement (permitted under Tapia) | No abuse of discretion; recommendation to BOP for treatment is allowed |
| Whether a brief oral explanation at revocation requires more detailed § 3553(a) findings | Henderson: brevity left insufficient record of consideration | Government: circumstances (admission, short hearing, agreed Guidelines) made brief explanation adequate | Majority: presumption and explicit statement suffice; concurrence: explanation arguably insufficient but no plain-error harm shown |
| Standard of review for unpreserved § 3553(a) objection | Henderson: error review (urges reversal) | Government: plain-error review applies | Plain-error review applied; Henderson failed to show substantial-rights prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Perkins, 526 F.3d 1107 (8th Cir.) (presumption that judge considered § 3553(a))
- United States v. Battiest, 553 F.3d 1132 (8th Cir.) (presuming district judges consider § 3553(a) factors)
- Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (Supreme Court) (within-Guidelines sentence requires less detailed explanation)
- Tapia v. United States, 564 U.S. 319 (Supreme Court) (court may not lengthen sentence to promote rehabilitation but may recommend placement in treatment)
- United States v. White Face, 383 F.3d 733 (8th Cir.) (need evidence court considered matters and stated some reason)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (Supreme Court) (procedural error includes failure to consider § 3553(a) or to explain chosen sentence)