United States v. Paul Himes, Jr.
439 F. App'x 272
4th Cir.2011Background
- Himes pleaded guilty to one count of possession of a stolen firearm under 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(j), 924(a)(2).
- Four-count indictment alleged theft of firearms while Himes worked as a seasonal UPS employee in West Virginia.
- District court calculated a Guidelines range of 21–27 months and imposed a 34-month sentence.
- The government urged a sentence over 30 months to ensure RDAP eligibility; district court accepted this rationale.
- District court explicitly stated the sentence was based on Himes’s need for the RDAP program.
- Court of Appeals vacated and remanded after Tapia v. United States held rehabilitation cannot drive imprisonment length.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether sentencing for rehabilitation violated 3582(a). | Himes argues district court relied on RDAP eligibility to set term. | Government contends RDAP aim justified variance considerations. | Yes; district court erred by considering rehabilitation in length of imprisonment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Tapia v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 2382 (2011) (cannot impose or lengthen a prison term to promote rehabilitation)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (U.S. 2007) (abuse-of-discretion standard governs sentencing review)
- United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325 (4th Cir. 2009) (procedural reasonableness of sentence under Gall framework)
- United States v. Jimenez, 605 F.3d 415 (6th Cir. 2010) (circuit split on § 3582(a) rehabilitation consideration)