United States v. Tidzump
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 20205
10th Cir.2016Background
- Ashley Tidzump pleaded guilty to assault and admitted opioid addiction and need for treatment; she requested an 18-month prison term.
- BOP RDAP eligibility ordinarily requires roughly 24 months remaining on the sentence.
- The district court varied downward from the advisory guideline range to impose a 31-month sentence so Tidzump could qualify for RDAP.
- At sentencing the court expressly stated it chose 31 months to allow Tidzump to get into RDAP, noting uncertainty but concluding 31 months was likely the minimum.
- Tidzump did not object at sentencing; on appeal the government defended the sentence while Tidzump argued the court impermissibly lengthened her term to promote rehabilitation.
- The Tenth Circuit found the district court’s rationale conflicted with Tapia and reversed for resentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether sentencing to allow RDAP participation violates Tapia | Government: sentence was a permissible downward variance not motivated by rehabilitation; uncertainty about RDAP timing shows no plain Tapia error | Tidzump: court expressly lengthened sentence to secure RDAP eligibility, which Tapia forbids | Court: Error was plain — court expressly relied on RDAP eligibility and thus impermissibly considered rehabilitation |
| Whether error is reviewable given no contemporaneous objection (plain-error standard) | Government: no clear precedent that Tapia forbids accounting for treatment in a downward variance | Tidzump: Tapia is clear and the district court plainly erred | Court: Applied plain-error review and concluded the error was plain and obvious |
| Whether error affected substantial rights (would sentence likely be shorter absent the error) | Government: uncertainty about exact RDAP timing and pretrial credit means court may not have lengthened sentence for rehabilitation | Tidzump: court said it preferred no prison and declined 18 months only due to RDAP; thus sentence likely would have been lower | Court: Tidzump met burden; likely would have received a shorter sentence absent RDAP-based reasoning |
| Whether error seriously affected fairness, integrity, or public reputation of proceedings | Government: (implicit) no prejudice sufficient to require reversal | Tidzump: the sentence exceeded requested 18 months by >40%, supporting prejudice | Court: Error seriously affected fairness/integrity/public reputation; reversed and remanded for resentencing |
Key Cases Cited
- Tapia v. United States, 564 U.S. 319 (2011) (district courts may not impose or lengthen a prison term to promote rehabilitation)
- United States v. Mendiola, 696 F.3d 1033 (10th Cir. 2012) (applies Tapia; discusses plain-error review and Tapia’s clarity)
- United States v. Cordery, 656 F.3d 1103 (10th Cir. 2011) (prejudice inquiry: Tapia error likely requires reversal if sentence likely would have been lower without RDAP focus)