United States v. Valencia, 776 F.3d 1173

In 1998 Valencia pleaded guilty to armed bank robbery and a §924(c) firearms charge; sentenced to 211 months imprisonment plus five years supervised release.
Valencia began supervised release in June 2013 and submitted urine samples in the first two weeks that tested positive for illegal drugs.
Probation filed a revocation petition; Valencia admitted the violations at a May 20, 2014 revocation hearing.
The advisory Guidelines range for revocation was 8–14 months; defense requested time served (~11 months), probation recommended 24 months to allow for treatment, and the government deferred to probation.
The district court imposed a 24-month prison term (above the Guidelines) with no on-the-record §3553(a) explanation; Valencia appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Valencia)	Defendant's Argument (Government/Probation)	Held
Whether the district court procedurally erred by failing to state §3553(a) reasons for an above-Guidelines revocation sentence	District court failed to state reasons on the record for upward variance	Government deferred to probation’s recommendation; probation relied on need for treatment	Court found lack of on-the-record reasons and remanded for resentencing
Whether the substantive basis for the 24-month sentence (rehabilitation/treatment) is legally permissible	An above-Guidelines sentence was unjustified; rehabilitation cannot justify longer prison term	Probation recommended longer term to provide care/treatment while incarcerated	Court concluded sentence appeared based on impermissible rehabilitative purpose and vacated sentence
Whether remand for resentencing is required given these errors	Resentencing necessary because reversible error likely occurred	Government conceded the errors and agreed resentencing was appropriate	Court remanded with directions to vacate and resentence
Whether immediate mandate should issue for resentencing	Requested immediate decision and mandate for resentencing	Government did not oppose resentencing but did not press immediate mandate	Court denied Valencia’s unopposed motion for immediate mandate as moot; mandate to issue forthwith

Tapia v. United States, 564 U.S. 319 (2011) (federal courts may not impose or lengthen a prison term to promote rehabilitation)
United States v. Mendiola, 696 F.3d 1033 (10th Cir. 2012) (applying Tapia in Tenth Circuit revocation/resentencing context)
Kamen v. Kemper Fin. Servs., 500 U.S. 90 (1991) (appellate courts may identify and apply proper governing law even if parties advance different theories)