United States v. Michael Deen
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 2613
| 6th Cir. | 2013Background
- Deen was convicted in 2008 of distributing cocaine base and sentenced to 66 months in prison followed by 4 years of supervised release.
- He began supervised release in March 2011 after partial custody reduction.
- Probation officer moved to revoke supervised release after violations including domestic incidents and drug/alcohol issues.
- District court imposed 24 months imprisonment followed by 24 months supervised release, stating rehabilitation could best be achieved through incarceration.
- Deen and the government subsequently moved to vacate the sentence in light of Tapia v. United States (2011), arguing Tapia applies to revocation sentences as well.
- The issue is whether Tapia’s prohibition on using rehabilitation as a basis to impose or lengthen a prison term extends to revocation sentencing under 18 U.S.C. §3583(e)(3).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Tapia apply to revocation sentences under §3583(e)(3)? | Deen argues Tapia bars prison-imposed rehab motivation in revocation. | Government argues Tapia does not bar revocation-length considerations. | Yes; Tapia applies to revocation sentences. |
| Does Tapia foreclose Jackson’s rehabilitation-based length considerations in revocation sentencing? | Jackson allowed rehab considerations in length of imprisonment. | Tapia overrides Jackson’s logic for revocation. | No; Tapia invalidates rehabilitation-based length considerations in revocation sentencing. |
| What is the proper remedy given Tapia’s ruling? | Vacate and remand for resentencing. | Maintain/modify sentence per 3583(e) framework. | Vacate Deen’s sentence and remand for resentencing. |
Key Cases Cited
- Tapia v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 2382 (U.S. 2011) (bar on sentencing to promote rehabilitation when imposing or lengthening prison terms)
- United States v. Jackson, 70 F.3d 874 (6th Cir. 1995) (rehabilitative goals may be considered in length of revocation sentence)
- United States v. Walker, 649 F.3d 511 (6th Cir. 2011) (standard of review for sentencing decisions)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (U.S. 2007) (reasonableness of sentence; procedural vs substantive)
- United States v. Peebles, 624 F.3d 344 (6th Cir. 2010) (two-part test for sentencing reasonableness)
- United States v. Molingnaro, 649 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2011) ( Tapia-type reasoning applied to revocation context)
- United States v. Grant, 664 F.3d 276 (9th Cir. 2011) (supports Tapia application to revocation sentences)
- United States v. Bennett, 698 F.3d 194 (4th Cir. 2012) (agrees with Tapia applicability to revocation)
- United States v. Taylor, 679 F.3d 1005 (8th Cir. 2012) (agrees with Tapia applicability to revocation)
- United States v. Mendiola, 696 F.3d 1033 (10th Cir. 2012) (agrees with Tapia applicability to revocation)
- United States v. Breland, 647 F.3d 284 (5th Cir. 2011) (initial stance questioned by Tapia remand)