IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-20698

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

SEPTIEN AMERICUS THOMPSON, 

 Defendant – Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:07-CR-438-1

Before KING, ELROD, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Septien Americus Thompson appeals his revocation sentence, arguing 

that the district court erred under Tapia v. United States, 564 U.S. 319 (2011). 

We AFFIRM. 

I.

Thompson pleaded guilty to unlawful possession of a firearm after a 

felony conviction. The district court sentenced him to 92 months of 

 

* Pursuant to Fifth Circuit Rule 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should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth 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 Fifth Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

February 9, 2018

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-20698 Document: 00514343853 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/09/2018
No. 16-20698

2

imprisonment and three years of supervised release. Thompson’s supervised 

release began in 2014, and over the next year, Thompson tested positive for 

illegal drugs six times. In 2016, he pleaded guilty in state court to tampering 

with or fabricating evidence in violation of Texas Penal Code section 37.09 and 

evading arrest or detention with a motor vehicle in violation of Texas Penal 

Code section 38.04. At his revocation hearing, Thompson pleaded true to these 

violations. The district court, in light of Thompson’s numerous violations, the 

factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), the Chapter 7 policy statements, and “the added 

benefit” of eligibility for drug treatment, revoked Thompson’s supervised 

release and sentenced him at the low end of the guidelines range to 21 months 

of imprisonment. The district court then noted that it would strongly 

recommended to the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) that Thompson be enrolled in a 

drug-treatment program. Thompson timely appealed the revocation sentence. 

II.

The parties disagree on the standard of review that applies. Thompson 

argues that the “plainly unreasonable” standard applies, citing United States 

v. Miller, 634 F.3d 841, 843 (5th Cir. 2011). The government argues that we 

should review for plain error, citing United States v. Walker, 742 F.3d 614, 616 

(5th Cir. 2014). We need not resolve this issue, because even under the 

standard urged by Thompson, he cannot prevail. 

III.

In Tapia, the Supreme Court 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. Tapia’s holding applies to revocation sentences. United States v. Garza, 

706 F.3d 655, 659 (5th Cir. 2013). However, this court has distinguished 

situations in which rehabilitation is an “additional justification” for the prison 

sentence, which is permitted, from those in which rehabilitation is the 

 Case: 16-20698 Document: 00514343853 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/09/2018
No. 16-20698

3

“dominant factor,” which violates § 3582(a). Garza, 706 F.3d at 660 (footnote

omitted). Moreover, “[a] court commits no error by discussing the 

opportunities for rehabilitation within prison or the benefits of specific 

treatment or training programs”; in addition, “a court may urge the BOP to 

place an offender in a prison treatment program.” Tapia, 564 U.S. at 334.

Here, when defense counsel raised the Tapia issue, the district court 

specifically denied that eligibility for drug treatment was the “only reason” for 

the revocation sentence. The district court further noted that the 21-month 

sentence was proper in light of Thompson’s offenses, the other factors under 

§ 3553(a), and the Chapter 7 policy statements. The district court considered 

eligibility for drug treatment an “added benefit” of the sentence imposed. 

Under Tapia, this is not error. 

IV.

Accordingly, we AFFIRM the revocation sentence. 

 Case: 16-20698 Document: 00514343853 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/09/2018