UNITED STATES v. WILLIAMS (2018)

Iry Williams was convicted of one count of possession of a firearm by a felon, one count of assault upon a federal officer, and one count of escape. The sentences for these offenses were imposed to run consecutively, for a total of 260 months in prison, and he also received three-year terms of supervised release for each offense that were imposed to run concurrently. Now, he argues that the district court plainly erred under Tapia v. United States, 564 U.S. 319, 131 S.Ct. 2382, 180 L.Ed.2d 357 (2011), by grounding his sentence in rehabilitation concerns.

Tapia held that 18 U.S.C. § 3582(a) “prevents a sentencing court from imposing or lengthening a prison term because the court thinks an offender will benefit from a prison treatment program.” 564 U.S. at 334, 131 S.Ct. 2382. Treatment may be an “additional justification” for a term of imprisonment but may not be the “dominant factor” underlying a prison sentence. United States v. Garza, 706 F.3d 655, 660 (5th Cir. 2013) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

Williams has not demonstrated plain error. See United States v. Escalante-Reyes, 689 F.3d 415, 419, 423-24 (5th Cir. 2012) (en banc). This is because the record supports a conclusion that, while Williams’s need for rehabilitation may have been one of the district court’s sentencing concerns, it was not a dominant factor underlying the district court’s choice of sentence. See Garza, 706 F.3d at 660; Escalante-Reyes, 689 F.3d at 423-24.

AFFIRMED.

FOOTNOTES

FOOTNOTE.  

PER CURIAM: * FN* Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.