United States v. Tapia, 665 F.3d 1059

Tapia convicted on immigration and bail-jumping charges after attempting to cross from Mexico with two undocumented aliens.
District judge imposed a 51-month term within a 41–51 month Guidelines range.
Judge stated sentence needed to provide correctional treatment via a drug rehabilitation program.
Tapia did not object at sentencing but appealed the rehabilitation consideration.
Supreme Court reversed and remanded to address whether plain error entitles relief despite lack of objection.
Ninth Circuit held the district court committed plain error by considering rehabilitation and vacated/remanded for resentencing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether district court's rehabilitation consideration at sentencing was plain error	Tapia argues rehab is impermissible under §3582(a)	Government contends plain error not established or not reversible	Yes, plain error established; remand for resentencing

United States v. Waknine, 543 F.3d 546 (9th Cir. 2008) (plain-error standard for sentencing)
United States v. Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. 74 (Supreme Court 2004) (probability standard for affecting substantial rights)
United States v. Ameline, 409 F.3d 1073 (9th Cir. 2005) (en banc; standards for plain error)
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (requirement to explain reasons for sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a))
Castillo-Casiano, 198 F.3d 787 (9th Cir. 1999) (plain-error sentencing correction appropriate)