United States v. Gilliard
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 3256
| 2d Cir. | 2012Background
- Gilliard pled guilty to conspiring to distribute and possess with intent to distribute heroin, 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(b)(1)(C), 846; district court sentenced him to 96 months’ imprisonment.
- Plea agreement and PSR calculated a Guidelines range of 57 to 71 months; prior convictions included money laundering and multiple offenses; history showed attempted supervised-release violations.
- District court considered § 3553(a) factors, including extensive criminal history, the crime’s seriousness, deterrence, and risk of recidivism; defense urged a within-range sentence due to health issues.
- Court discussed rehabilitative needs in context of BOP recommendations, not as basis for longer imprisonment; ultimately imposed an above-Guidelines sentence of 96 months.
- Gilliard challenged the sentence as procedurally unreasonable under Tapia v. United States (2011) for promoting rehabilitation, and as substantively unreasonable; the panel affirmed the sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Tapia prohibits sentencing to promote rehabilitation | Gilliard argues the district court lengthened sentence to enable treatment. | Gilliard contends rehabilitation drove the sentence length. | No procedural error; district court relied on § 3553(a) factors and permissibly discussed rehabilitation for BOP placement. |
| Whether the sentence is substantively unreasonable | Gilliard asserts excessive weight on criminal history and offense, undervalued health issues. | Gilliard contends the court failed to properly weigh his health and rehabilitation needs. | Sentence within range of permissible decisions; not substantively unreasonable. |
Key Cases Cited
- Tapia v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 2382 (S. Ct. 2011) (rehabilitation cannot drive imprisonment length; may discuss treatment opportunities)
- United States v. Cavera, 550 F.3d 180 (2d Cir. 2008) (procedural reasonableness review; consider § 3553(a) and factual findings)
- United States v. Rigas, 583 F.3d 108 (2d Cir. 2009) (substantive reasonableness; deference to district court's discretion)
- United States v. Fernandez, 443 F.3d 19 (2d Cir. 2006) (weight given to characteristics and circumstances in sentencing)