United States v. James Bennett, Jr.
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 22201
| 4th Cir. | 2012Background
- Bennett was convicted of felon-in-possession of a firearm and later of escape, with consecutive initial sentences and multiple terms of supervised release.
- A motion for revocation of supervised release was filed based on state robbery/conspiracy and cocaine-use grounds.
- The district court held a revocation hearing and sentenced Bennett to 24 months on each of two revocations, running consecutively.
- The court framed the sentence around a breach-of-trust narrative and stated Bennett needed intensive substance-abuse treatment.
- Bennett argued that Tapia prohibits considering rehabilitative needs when imposing or lengthening a prison term, including revocation sentences.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Tapia apply to revocation sentencing on supervised release? | Bennett | United States | Yes, Tapia applies to revocation sentencing. |
| May a court consider rehabilitative needs when sentencing on revocation? | Bennett claims such consideration is barred by Tapia | Government argues rehabilitation can be discussed; but not as the basis for imprisonment length | Rehabilitative needs cannot drive the imprisonment length; may inform treatment recommendations. |
| Did the purported Tapia error affect Bennett’s substantial rights? | Error impacted the sentence | Error was harmless given the breach-of-trust focus | No, the error did not affect the outcome; the breach of trust drove the sentence. |
| Was Bennett's objection to Tapia error properly preserved? | Argued concurrently about concurrent sentences | Objection was not sufficiently specific; preserved claims fail on Olano prong. |
Key Cases Cited
- Tapia v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 2382 (2011) (prohibits using rehabilitation to justify imprisonment)
- United States v. Molignaro, 649 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2011) (applies Tapia logic to revocation context)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2008) (procedure and reasonableness standard for reviewing sentences)
- United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (1993) (plain-error standard for unpreserved claims)
- United States v. Finley, 531 F.3d 288 (4th Cir. 2008) (procedural/ substantive reasonableness review for sentences)