United States v. Spann, 757 F.3d 674

Defendant charged with possession of more than 100 grams of heroin with intent to distribute under 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B)(i)
He pled guilty and received a 97-month sentence.
Guidelines range at sentencing was 78–97 months; the government sought 180 months due to heroin purity and local death statistics.
Defendant’s counsel argued lack of evidence tying local deaths or purity to the defendant, noting national purity around 59% and no customer deaths tied to his heroin.
Judge rejected the 180-month request and imposed 97 months at the top of the range, issuing terse reasons focused on general drug harm and rehabilitation.
Defendant’s counsel questioned why the high end rather than the low end was chosen, prompting concerns that the court failed to justify the sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
The court stated it would not engage in a debate about the sentence if the defendant was not satisfied and suggested an appeal. The case is remanded because the sentence lacks proper justification and is not individualized.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the 97-month sentence was properly justified under §3553(a).	State argues the court had a basis in seriousness of drug crime.	Defendant argues the court did not provide individualized justification; relied on generalities.	Sentence vacated and remanded for proper justification.
Whether the district court relied on rehabilitation to lengthen incarceration, violating Tapia.	Government contends rehabilitation was a permissible factor.	Defense notes rehabilitation cannot justify prison length under Tapia.	Rehabilitation cannot justify prison term; remand to reimpose with proper factors.
Whether reliance on averages/departures without particularized facts was proper.	Government used averages (purity, deaths) to justify high-end sentence.	No individualized facts tying defendant to higher harm or deaths.	Insufficient justification; remand for individualized record.
Whether the judge’s terse remarks satisfied 3553(a) requirements.	Government asserted seriousness supports top-of-range.	Record lacks explanation tied to defendant’s offense specifics.	Remand required for meaningful explanation of sentence.

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (requires explanation of selected sentence within applicable range under §3553(a))
United States v. Washington, 739 F.3d 1080 (7th Cir. 2014) (reminds that individualized, case-specific justification is required)
Tapia v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 2382 (2011) (rehabilitation cannot justify longer prison term)