United States v. Story
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 3462
| 10th Cir. | 2011Background
- Story pleaded guilty to one count of unlawful possession of stolen mail under 18 U.S.C. § 1708.
- The district court sentenced Story to 24 months, above the 12–18 month guideline range, to qualify for the Residential Drug Abuse Program (RDAP).
- The judge stated the sentence aimed to ensure Story could receive long-term drug treatment unavailable to shorter sentences.
- Story’s counsel objected to the length based on warrants issue, not § 3582(a); the objection did not raise rehabilitative-constraint concerns.
- Story appealed, arguing § 3582(a) forbids increasing imprisonment to pursue rehabilitation; a circuit split existed and Tapia v. United States later granted cert.
- This panel concluded § 3582(a) bars increasing imprisonment to promote rehabilitation; the district court erred but plain-error relief was not warranted given the circuit split.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| May a district court increase imprisonment to promote rehabilitation? | Story argues § 3582(a) forbids using rehabilitation as a basis to lengthen imprisonment. | Government posits rehabilitation can be a factor in sentencing length, but later concedes error in this case. | No; § 3582(a) bars increasing imprisonment for rehabilitation. |
| Is the error plain given the circuit split on § 3582(a)? | Story asserts clear error under settled law. | Government contends unresolved circuit split means no plain error. | Not plain error; circuit split weighs against plain-error finding. |
| Does the statutory interpretation align with § 3553(a) when reconciling rehabilitation goals? | Story relies on § 3553(a) to allow rehabilitation consideration. | Court adopts majority view that rehabilitation cannot drive term-length decisions under § 3582(a). | § 3582(a) bars rehabilitation-based adjustments in both decision to imprison and length of term. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Hawk Wing, 433 F.3d 622 (8th Cir. 2006) (rehabilitation considerations limited to initial imprisonment decision)
- United States v. Duran, 37 F.3d 557 (9th Cir. 1994) (rehabilitation not to determine length of imprisonment)
- United States v. Jimenez, 605 F.3d 415 (6th Cir. 2010) (majority view rejects rehabilitation-based length decisions)
- United States v. Manzella, 475 F.3d 152 (3d Cir. 2007) (read § 3553(a) broadly; § 3582(a) prohibits rehabilitation in setting imprisonment length)
- In re Sealed Case, 573 F.3d 844 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (rejection of rehabilitative-length exceptions; § 3582(a) speaks with clarity)
- United States v. Tsosie, 376 F.3d 1210 (10th Cir. 2004) (rehabilitation not sole purpose for imprisonment; related issue discussed)