United States v. Grant
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 24065
| 9th Cir. | 2011Background
- Grant was convicted of fraud on two banks using counterfeit checks; sentenced in 2004 to 1 day prison per count and five years of supervised release, plus $38,598.44 restitution.
- During supervised release, Grant committed multiple violations involving cocaine, marijuana, and alcohol; he was hospitalized after an overdose.
- The district court revoked supervised release originally and imposed 3 months in prison plus 57 months of supervised release (in a separate matter).
- Grant was later charged with additional supervised-release violations; the court found him guilty on six violations but stayed revocation, warning this was his last chance.
- A later incident showed alcohol consumption; he avoided a drug test and failed to appear for a scheduled drug test.
- For the revocation violations, the court imposed a 24-month prison term followed by 24 months of supervised release to facilitate rehabilitation, based on a belief that longer imprisonment would enable meaningful treatment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Tapia prohibits considering rehabilitation when imposing prison length | Grant argues rehabilitation cannot justify prison or its length | Grant's position; the court may factor rehabilitation into length | Tapia applies to imprisonment length; rehabilitation cannot justify imprisonment or its duration |
| Whether Duran is overruled and Tapia applies to revocation cases | Grant contends Tapia should apply to revocation as well | Ms. Grant's argument; Tapia governs both initial sentencing and revocation | Tapia controls; Duran is overruled in revocation context |
| How rehabilitation considerations interact with 3553 factors in revocation sentencing | Rehabilitation must not drive imprisonment decision | 3553 factors may be considered; rehabilitation is explicit in supervised-release statute | Imprisonment length must be based on retribution, deterrence, incapacitation—not rehabilitation |
Key Cases Cited
- Tapia v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 2382 (2011) (rehabilitation cannot be a basis for imprisonment or its length)
- United States v. Duran, 37 F.3d 557 (1994) (pre-Tapia authority allowing rehabilitation to influence length for revocation case)
- United States v. Gaudin, 28 F.3d 943 (9th Cir. 1994) (en banc; evidentiary error standard in sentencing)
- United States v. Molignaro, 649 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2011) (Tapia applies to revocation sentencing; rehabilitation cannot justify imprisonment)
- United States v. Breland, 647 F.3d 284 (5th Cir. 2011) (circuit split on rehabilitation consideration in revocation cases)