United States v. White, 511 F. App'x 693

White pled guilty to failing to update sex-offender registration; district court sentenced time served as a downward variance.
District court varied downward due to White's advanced age and ill health and ordered a life-term of supervised release with up to 6 months in a residential re-entry center.
White was terminated from the re-entry program for inappropriate conduct and noncompliance within weeks of starting supervision.
Dr. Castillo assessed White as a high risk of reoffending and recommended intensive inpatient therapy; probation favored imprisonment.
At the revocation hearing, the court found White violated supervised release and sentenced him to 18 months’ imprisonment with 20 years of supervised release, suggesting treatment and possible certification as a sexually dangerous person if he refused treatment.
The court tied its upward variance to the need to protect the public given White's history and risk, contrary to prior intent to spare him imprisonment via treatment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court erred by considering rehabilitation to justify an upward variance.	White argues rehabilitation Faktoren prohibited.	United States contends Tapia allows discussion of rehabilitation; no error.	No plain error; no miscarriage of justice shown.

Tapia v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 2382 (2011) (cannot lengthen prison term to promote rehabilitation)
United States v. Mendiola, 696 F.3d 1033 (10th Cir. 2012) (extends Tapia to revocation context)
United States v. Gonzalez-Huerta, 403 F.3d 727 (10th Cir. 2005) (en banc; plain error review framework)
United States v. Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. 74 (2004) (plain error test: error, plain, affecting substantial rights)
United States v. Garza, 566 F.3d 1194 (10th Cir. 2009) (miscarriage of justice requires substantial impact)
United States v. Collins, 461 F. App’x 807 (10th Cir. 2012) (formulaic recitation of 3553(a)(2)(D) insufficient to prove rehabilitative motive)