United States v. Julie Receskey
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 20370
| 5th Cir. | 2012Background
- Receskey pled guilty to possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine and was sentenced to 46 months in prison and 5 years of supervised release.
- Her supervised release began May 2, 2008; in June 2011 she was charged with multiple violations including heroin use and failure to comply with treatment.
- At the revocation hearing, Receskey pled true to all allegations; counsel urged a within-range sentence of 3–9 months.
- The district court revoked supervised release and imposed 30 months' imprisonment followed by 24 months' supervised release.
- The court discussed rehab opportunities and stated that a longer sentence would address factors beyond deterrence and punishment, aiming to allow participation in treatment.
- Receskey challenged the sentence as impermissibly based on rehabilitative needs under Tapia v. United States.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Tapia limits lengthening a sentence for rehabilitation | Receskey argues Tapia forbids lengthening to enable rehab. | The district court may discuss rehab but not lengthen for rehab; here it did not base the length on rehab. | Tapia not violated; sentence not plainly unreasonable. |
| Appropriate standard of review for post-revocation sentences | Raised issues should be reviewed under a reasonable standard. | Plainly unreasonable standard applies for revocation sentences. | Plainly unreasonable standard applied; review for reasonableness under abuse-of-discretion. |
| Whether the district court based or lengthened the sentence to promote rehab | Court lengthened sentence to enable rehab programs. | Court addressed statutory factors; rehab discussion was non-dominant and not the basis for length. | No basis to find lengthening for rehab; rehab discussion was an ancillary factor. |
Key Cases Cited
- Tapia v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 2382 (2011) (court may discuss rehab opportunities but may not lengthen to promote rehabilitation)
- United States v. Miller, 634 F.3d 841 (5th Cir. 2011) (plainly unreasonable standard for revocation sentences)
- United States v. Mathena, 23 F.3d 87 (5th Cir. 1994) (guideline-factor consideration in revocation cases)
- United States v. Pickar, 666 F.3d 1167 (8th Cir. 2012) (rehabilitation as a non-dominant factor; no Tapia error)
- United States v. Cardenas-Mireles, 446 F.App'x 991 (10th Cir. 2011) (assessment of needs vs. sentence length; health needs not controlling)
- United States v. Broussard, 669 F.3d 537 (5th Cir. 2012) (Tapia error for explicit rehabilitation-based sentence)
- United States v. Gilliard, 671 F.3d 255 (2d Cir. 2012) (rehabilitation discussion alone not Tapia error)
- United States v. Lucas, 670 F.3d 784 (7th Cir. 2012) (mere discussion of rehab opportunities not prohibited)
- United States v. Blackmon, 662 F.3d 981 (8th Cir. 2011) (no lengthening for rehab where not dispositive of sentence)
- United States v. Taylor, 679 F.3d 1005 (8th Cir. 2012) (Tapia error where lengthening sentence to enable treatment)
- United States v. Molignaro, 649 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2011) (no Tapia error where length not solely for treatment)