United States v. Walter Henry Vandergrift, Jr.
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 11428
11th Cir.2014Background
- Vandergrift, previously sentenced to 97 months for possession and distribution of child pornography, entered a three-year term of supervised release.
- Before supervised release ended, a probation officer filed a petition alleging five violations of the release conditions.
- The district court found by a preponderance of the evidence that Vandergrift committed all five violations and revoked supervised release.
- At sentencing for the revocation, the court imposed a 24-month term of imprisonment followed by one year of supervised release, justifying it under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and expressing concerns about rehabilitation and public safety.
- Vandergrift appeals, attacking: (i) whether violations (1) and (4) were proven, (ii) the procedural reasonableness of the 24-month sentence, including reliance on improper factors, and (iii) Tapia-based rehabilitation considerations.
- The court’s opinion affirms the revocation and sentence, resolving the challenges and addressing Tapia-based concerns.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the revocation supported by the record on violations (1) and (4)? | Vandergrift argues the government failed to prove (1) and (4). | Vandergrift admits violations (3) and (5); does not challenge (2); disputes (1) and (4). | Revocation upheld; admitted/undisputed violations support revocation. |
| Was the 24-month imprisonment procedurally reasonable under §3553(a)? | Court erred by considering impermissible §3553(a)(2)(A) factors. | Court may consider §3553(a) factors; no reversible error. | No plain error shown for §3553(a)(2)(A) factors. |
| Did the district court commit Tapia error by considering rehabilitation when imposing imprisonment? | Rehabilitation considerations improperly influenced the sentence. | Rehabilitation considerations permissible in discussion but not as primary driver. | Tapia error found; but not prejudicial; affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Cunningham, 607 F.3d 1264 (11th Cir. 2010) (abuse-of-discretion review for revocation decisions)
- United States v. Velasquez Velasquez, 524 F.3d 1248 (11th Cir. 2008) (reasonableness review of revocation sentences)
- United States v. Jones, 899 F.2d 1097 (11th Cir. 1990) (plain-error standard when no objection raised)
- United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (U.S. 1993) (plain-error standard for appellate review)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (U.S. 2007) (procedural reasonableness in sentencing)
- Tapia v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 2382 (S. Ct. 2011) (rehabilitation cannot justify imprisonment; Tapia doctrine)
- Lifshitz, 714 F.3d 146 (2d Cir. 2013) (Tapia application in revocation context)