United States v. Vazquez-Mendez, 915 F.3d 85

Adrián Vázquez-Méndez pled guilty in 2001 to conspiracy to distribute cocaine and was sentenced to 168 months imprisonment plus five years supervised release; he began supervised release on December 28, 2012.
In 2017 probation reported multiple violations near the end of his term: three positive marijuana tests, failure to report a change of address, failure to report two domestic incidents, missed drug-treatment and screening appointments.
Two domestic incidents prompted police involvement; no criminal charges resulted, but a restraining order was entered pending a hearing; Vázquez did not timely report these incidents to his probation officer.
The government moved to revoke supervised release; Vázquez admitted the violations and declined an evidentiary hearing; the parties jointly recommended time served (42 days) and six months’ supervised release with three months’ home detention.
The district court imposed an upward variant: two years’ imprisonment plus two years supervised release, expressly stating the sentence would assist Vázquez’s rehabilitation and reintegration and give him “space to think, reflect and establish new goals.”
Vázquez objected on grounds the sentence was substantively unreasonable and that relying on rehabilitation to increase a sentence is impermissible; the First Circuit vacated and remanded for resentencing because the district court impermissibly relied on rehabilitation as a sentencing justification.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether district court may increase sentence to promote rehabilitation	Government: upward variance justified by numerous violations and need for deterrence/public protection	Vázquez: lengthening sentence to promote rehabilitation violates Tapia and is impermissible	Court: Reversed — district court relied on rehabilitation, which is impermissible under Tapia and First Circuit precedent
Whether unproven domestic-violence allegations may support increased sentence	Government: factual conduct relevant to sentencing	Vázquez: court considered unproven allegations; improper	Court: Doubtful the allegations drove sentence; on remand judge warned unproven charges cannot be relied upon
Procedural reasonableness of upward variance relative to Guidelines	Government: variance within court's discretion given multiple late-term violations	Vázquez: variance substantively unreasonable	Court: District court within authority to consider upward variance generally, but error in sentencing rationale requires remand
Whether remand should be to a new judge	Government: not necessary	Vázquez: earlier practice supported reassignment in some cases	Court: Remands to same judge are presumptively acceptable; reassignment only in unusual cases

Tapia v. United States, 564 U.S. 319 (2011) (courts may not impose or lengthen prison time to promote rehabilitation)
United States v. Molignaro, 649 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2011) (Tapia rule applies on resentencing after supervised-release revocation)
United States v. Del Valle-Rodríguez, 761 F.3d 171 (1st Cir. 2014) (rehabilitative intent is reversible only if it was the dominant factor in sentencing)
United States v. Bryant, 643 F.3d 28 (1st Cir. 2011) (reassignment to new judge after remand is appropriate only in unusual cases)