United States v. Kopp, 922 F.3d 337

Background

Rachel L. Kopp, with longstanding substance-abuse history and prior drug convictions, pleaded guilty to escaping federal custody after failing to report to a transitional program following BOP release.
At sentencing, the Guidelines range was 15–21 months; government sought a within-Guidelines term, defense requested 12 months.
The district court initially announced an 18-month prison term, then asked whether 18 months would allow Kopp to complete BOP’s Residential Drug Abuse Program (RDAP).
The probation officer said 18 months was likely the minimum to participate; the court immediately increased the sentence to 20 months, stating the extra time was to ensure RDAP participation.
Kopp interrupted to note RDAP is nine months; she did not formally object to the court’s decision at sentencing.
On appeal, Kopp argued the court unlawfully lengthened her prison term to promote rehabilitation in violation of Tapia and 18 U.S.C. § 3582(a); the Seventh Circuit vacated and remanded for resentencing.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court lengthened Kopp’s prison term to promote rehabilitation in violation of Tapia and § 3582(a)	Kopp: The court increased 18→20 months solely to ensure RDAP completion, which Tapia forbids	Government: The court considered treatment only as part of § 3553(a) factors and protection from recidivism; Kopp forfeited the claim	Held for Kopp: The record shows the only change was RDAP timing—court plainly erred by lengthening sentence to promote rehabilitation; vacated and remanded
Whether Kopp waived or forfeited her Tapia claim by failing to object at sentencing	Kopp: She opposed additional incarceration and interrupted when court proposed 20 months (preserved)	Government: Kopp failed to formally object and therefore forfeited or invited error	Court: No waiver; defense forfeited (no formal objection), so reviewed for plain error
Whether the error was plain and affected substantial rights	Kopp: The court would have imposed 18 months absent the Tapia error, so substantial rights affected	Government: Kopp did not show but-for difference	Held: Error was plain and affected substantial rights because the court announced 18 months before adding 2 months for RDAP; remand required
Whether the appellate court should decline remand absent showing of different but-for sentence	Kopp: Sentencing transcript shows the change resulted solely from RDAP timing	Government: No showing sentence would differ	Held: Transcript demonstrates the district court would have imposed 18 months but for the Tapia error; remand required

Key Cases Cited

Tapia v. United States, 564 U.S. 319 (2011) (federal courts may not impose or lengthen a prison term to promote rehabilitation)
Mistretta v. United States, 488 U.S. 361 (1989) (Sentencing Reform Act rejects imprisonment as means of promoting rehabilitation)
United States v. Burrows, 905 F.3d 1061 (7th Cir. 2018) (district court did not commit Tapia error where sentence length was based on offense seriousness and deterrence, not to secure program participation)
United States v. Seals, 813 F.3d 1038 (7th Cir. 2016) (standards for review of guideline application and waiver/forfeiture distinctions)
United States v. Holman, 840 F.3d 347 (7th Cir. 2016) (preservation principles for sentencing objections)
United States v. Lewis, 823 F.3d 1075 (7th Cir. 2016) (distinguishing tentative sentencing announcements from definitive ones for preservation)
United States v. Pennington, 908 F.3d 234 (7th Cir. 2018) (Rule 51 and preservation of appellate rights for post-decision objections)