United States v. Taylor
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 11283
| 8th Cir. | 2012Background
- Taylor originally received 42 months in prison and 3 years of supervised release for possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine.
- After release, he admitted to violating a supervised release condition by using methamphetamine and received 6 months in prison and 30 months of supervised release, with a new condition to reside in a residential facility for 120 days after release.
- Upon release from the 6-month prison term, he failed to report to the assigned facility and admitted drinking alcohol in violation of release conditions.
- A petition for warrant or summons was filed; Taylor was arrested and admitted to the petition's allegations, leading to sentencing on revocation.
- The advisory guideline range for the violations was 6 to 12 months, but the probation office recommended 24 months with no additional supervision.
- At sentencing, the district court stated it chose 24 months to make him eligible for a 500-hour drug treatment program, signaling rehabilitation as the purpose of the sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Tapia applicability to revocation sentencing | Taylor argues Tapia prohibits lengthening a sentence for rehabilitation. | USA argues Tapia may not apply to revocation sentencing. | Tapia applies to revocation sentencing; plain-error vacate and remand. |
| Plain-error standard in revocation context | Taylor did not object; appeal proceeds under plain-error review. | USA contends ordinary appellate review may apply, but plain-error standard governs here. | Plain-error review applies. |
| Whether district court's rehabilitation focus affected substantial rights | Sentence was influenced by rehabilitation goals instead of offenses and risk. | USA contends any error was non-prejudicial or incidental. | District court plainly erred by tying sentence to rehabilitation goal. |
| Remedial disposition | Remand for resentencing is appropriate. | No specific remand instruction stated in the ruling. | Vacate sentence and remand for resentencing consistent with Tapia. |
Key Cases Cited
- Tapia v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 2382 (U.S. 2011) (cannot lengthen sentence to ensure rehabilitation)
- United States v. Grant, 664 F.3d 276 (9th Cir. 2011) (Tapia applies to revocation sentencing)
- United States v. Molignaro, 649 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2011) (no hint that Tapia exception excludes revocation)
- Breland v. United States, U.S. , 132 S. Ct. 1096 (2012) (Tapia applies to revocation; cert granted and vacated)
- United States v. Cordery, 656 F.3d 1103 (10th Cir. 2011) (plain-error framework for rehabilitation-based sentencing)
- United States v. Olson, 667 F.3d 958 (8th Cir. 2012) (vacate-and-remand when rehabilitation motive evident)
- United States v. Smith, 573 F.3d 639 (8th Cir. 2009) (plain-error standard in appellate review)
- United States v. Blackmon, 662 F.3d 981 (8th Cir. 2011) (distinguishes cases with non-rehabilitation-related factors)
- United States v. Werlein, 664 F.3d 1143 (8th Cir. 2011) (assessment of sentencing motives in revocation cases)