United States v. Justin Bunting, 694 F. App'x 112

Appellant Justin C. Bunting pleaded guilty to two misdemeanor offenses under 36 C.F.R. § 2.35: being under the influence and possession of a controlled substance; district court sentenced him to 12 months (two consecutive six‑month terms).
Bunting was found unconscious on a beach amid drug paraphernalia and evidence of heavy substance use; the court expressed that his life was in immediate danger without treatment.
At sentencing the district court stated it intended to send Bunting to the Bureau of Prisons (FCI Butner) so he could receive mental‑health and substance‑abuse treatment and remain incarcerated “as long as he can be in there.”
Defense counsel noted Butner’s treatment resources; the court emphasized imprisonment would provide an opportunity for sobriety and likely save his life.
The Fourth Circuit reviewed the unraised Tapia claim for plain error, concluding the district court’s sentencing relied on rehabilitative goals and imposed consecutive maximum sentences to keep Bunting in federal custody for treatment.
The Fourth Circuit vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing, finding Tapia error that was plain and affected substantial rights and the integrity of the proceeding.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court violated Tapia by imposing/lengthening a sentence to ensure access to rehabilitation	Bunting: court sentenced him to incarceration principally to provide substance‑abuse/mental‑health treatment, which Tapia forbids	Government: sentencing court considered rehabilitation but did not impermissibly base length on it (implicitly argued sentencing proper)	Court: Tapia error occurred — sentence was imposed to secure treatment and keep him in custody; error was plain and affected substantial rights
Whether plain‑error review is satisfied where claim raised for first time on appeal	Bunting: Tapia claim may be reviewed for plain error	Government: contend no reversible plain error	Court: applied plain‑error framework and found requirements met (error, plainness, substantial rights, and effect on fairness/integrity)
Whether consecutive maximum sentences reflected independent sentencing rationales or were driven by rehabilitative intent	Bunting: consecutive terms were chosen to keep him in BOP for as long as possible to obtain treatment	Government: no alternative rationale given	Court: absence of other rationale indicates consecutive terms flowed from rehabilitative purpose, so Tapia error affected substantial rights
Whether remand for resentencing is required	Bunting: seeks resentencing because of Tapia error	Government: likely argues harmless or not reversible	Court: remanded for resentencing (vacated sentence)

Tapia v. United States, 564 U.S. 319 (2011) (holding court cannot impose or lengthen a sentence to ensure completion of treatment)
United States v. Alston, 722 F.3d 603 (4th Cir. 2013) (explaining Tapia permits considering rehabilitation but forbids causally related sentence lengthening)
United States v. Lemon, 777 F.3d 170 (4th Cir. 2015) (examining when reference to rehabilitation constitutes Tapia error)
United States v. Bennett, 698 F.3d 194 (4th Cir. 2012) (finding Tapia error did not affect substantial rights where rehabilitation was only a minor part of reasoning)
Molina‑Martinez v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1338 (2016) (plain‑error standard and when correction is required to protect fairness/integrity)
Setser v. United States, 566 U.S. 231 (2012) (district court discretion on concurrent vs. consecutive sentences)
United States v. McLaurin, 764 F.3d 372 (4th Cir. 2014) (plain‑error third prong: non‑speculative record basis that court would have imposed a lower sentence but for the error)