United States v. Jaqulyn Love
707 F. App'x 842
| 5th Cir. | 2018Background
- Jaqulyn Michelle Love was on supervised release after a conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of methamphetamine.
- The district court revoked her supervised release for a third time and sentenced her to 24 months' imprisonment.
- The advisory Guidelines range for revocation was 4–10 months.
- Love argued the 24‑month sentence improperly emphasized rehabilitation/substance‑abuse treatment in violation of Tapia v. United States.
- She did not object in district court, so appellate review was limited to plain‑error review.
- The Fifth Circuit reviewed whether rehabilitation was the dominant factor in sentencing and whether any error was plain, affected substantial rights, and warranted correction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 24‑month revocation sentence impermissibly relied on rehabilitation in violation of Tapia | The district court placed too much emphasis on Love’s substance abuse/need for treatment, making rehabilitation a dominant factor | The court primarily relied on §3553(a) factors and Chapter 7 policy statements, focusing on multiple revocations and need for a longer term | No plain error; record shows rehabilitation was not the dominant factor |
| Whether plain‑error review permits relief given no district‑court objection | Love: plain‑error standard is met because Tapia violation is clear/obvious and affected substantial rights | Government: Love must show clear error that affected substantial rights and the integrity of proceedings | Court: Love failed to show such error; plain‑error relief denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Tapia v. United States, 564 U.S. 319 (2011) (a court may not impose or lengthen prison to promote rehabilitation)
- United States v. Culbertson, 712 F.3d 235 (5th Cir. 2013) (plain‑error standard and whether rehabilitation was dominant factor)
- United States v. Mathena, 23 F.3d 87 (5th Cir. 1994) (requirements for revocation sentencing considerations)
- United States v. Garza, 706 F.3d 655 (5th Cir. 2013) (finding plain error where district court overly emphasized rehabilitation)
- United States v. Receskey, 699 F.3d 807 (5th Cir. 2012) (review of revocation sentences under §3553 and Chapter 7 policy statements)