2010 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit
8-16-2010 

# U SA v . J ohn D o e P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 09-2615

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2010 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin
. C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du
. Re c omme nde d C it at ion

" U SA v . J o hn D oe " (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 671. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/671H onor abl e J
. W i l l i am D i t t er , J r . , Seni orU ni t ed St at es * D i s t r i ctJ udge for t he E as t ern D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a, s i t t i ng by des i gnat i on. P RE CE DE NT I AL

UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

N o. 09- 2615

UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. J OH N D OE, A ppel l ant

O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e W e ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D
. C

. N o. 1- 05- cr - 00043- 1) D istri ct Ju d g e: H o n o rab le M au ri ce B
. C o h il l, Jr.

A r gued A pr i l 14, 2010 B e f o re : F IS H E R a n d C O W E N , C i r cui tJudges , a n d DI TT ER, D is tr i ct

Judge

. *2 ( Fi l ed: A ugus t16, 2010 ) C andac e C ai n ( A r gued) O ffi ce of Feder al Publ i c D efe nder 1001 L i ber t yA venue 1500 L i ber t yC ent er Pi t t s bur gh, PA 15222 T hom as W
. Pat t on O ffi ce of Feder al Publ i c D efe nder 1001 St at e St r eet 1 1 1 1 R en aissan ce C en tr e E r i e, PA 16501 C ouns el f orAppel l ant R ober tL
. E berhar dt L aur a S. I r w i n ( A r gued) O ffi ce of t he U ni t ed St at es A t t orney 700 G r antSt r eet , Sui t e 4000 Pi t t s bur gh, PA 15219 M ar s hal l J
. Pi cci ni ni O ffi ce of U ni t ed St at es A t t orney 17 Sout h Par k R ow , R oom A 330 E r i e, PA 16501 C ouns el f orAppel l ee

OPI NI ON O F THE COURTT h e d e f e n d a n t’s n a m e h a s b e e n c h a n g e d to p ro tec t h is 1 i d e n t i t y. 3 F IS H E R , C i r cui tJudge

. T hi s appea l as ks w hether18 U

. S. C

. § 3582( a) , w hi ch forbi ds a di s t r i ctcour tfr om i m pos i ng a t erm of i m pr i s onm entat in iti a l se n ten c in g f

o r th e p u rp o se o f

d ru g re h a b ili tatio n , res tricts a di s t r i ctcour tfr om cons i der ing m edi cal and r ehabi l i t at i ve needs w hen r evoki ng a def endant ’ s s upervi s ed r el eas e and re q u irin g th e d e f

e n d a n t to se rv e th e re m a in d e r o f h is s e n ten c e in pr i s on. T he D i s t r i ctC our ts ent ence d t he def endant , J ohn D oe, t o 24 m ont hs of i m pr i s onm entupon r evoca t i on of hi s s upervi s ed re lea se w ith th e o b

jec tiv e o f h e lp in g h im re c o v e r f ro m h is coca i ne addi ct i on. O n appeal , D oe cha l l enges the pr ocedur al a n d s u b s t a n t i v e r e a s o n a b l e n e s s o f th a ts e n t e n c e . Be c a u s e we hol d t hatthe pl ai n l anguage of § 3583( e) governi ng di s c r e t i o n a ryr e v o c a t i on of s upervi s ed r el eas e expr es s l yr equi r es c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f

me d i c a l n e e d s , we wi l l a f f i r m. I. D oe w as i ndi ct ed on Sept ember13, 2005 forpos s es s i on 1 w i t h i nt entt o del i verfi ve gra m s or m or e of c r ack c ocai ne under 21 U

. S. C

. §§ 841( a) ( 1) , 841( b) ( 1) ( i i i ) and 18 U

. S

. C

. § 2. D oe en tered a g u il typ lea. O n A u g u st 28 , 2 0 0 6 , the D istrict C o u rt s e n t e n c e d D o e t o 3 0 m o n t h s o f i m p r i s o n m e n tf

o l l o w e d b y 4 y ears of sup ervi se d rel ease. D oe’s i nit i al sent ence w as a s i gni fi cantr educt i on fr om t he G ui del i nes R ange o f 6 0 t o 65U nderG ui del i nes § 5K 1. 1, t he govern m entm ayfi l e a 2 m ot i on forr educe d s ent ence i n ci r cumst ances w her e the defe ndant“pr ovi ded s ubs t ant i al as s i s t ance ” t o t he governm ent i n an i nves t i gat i on. 4 m o n ths o f im p ri so n m en t and w as b ase d in large p art up o n D o e’s cooper at i on w i t h l aw enfor cementi n otheri nves t i gati o n s, as expr es s ed byt he G overnm enti n a 5K m ot i on. 2 A tt he s ent enci ng hear i ng, bot h the D i s t r i ct C our t and the p ro se c u to r a c k n o w led g e d th a t D o e h a d a se v e re a d d ictio n to coca i ne. I n t he Judgm entand C om m i t m entO r der , the D i s t r i ct C o u r tr e c o mme n d e d Doe b e a s s i g n e d t o th e 5 0 0

- h o u rdr ug reh ab il it ati o n p rog ram co n d u cted b y the B u rea u o f P ri so n s. In addi t i on, t he D i s t r i ctC our tor der ed that , w hi l e on s upervi s ed r el ea s e, D oe mustnotunl aw ful l ypos s es s orus e a c ont r ol l ed s u b s t a n c e a n d t h a th e m u s ts u b m i tt o d ru g t e s t i n g w i t h i n 1 5 d a ys of r el eas e fr om i ncar cer at i on and atl eas ttw o ot hert i m es th e re a f ter . T h e O rd e r f

u rth e r re q u ire d th a t D o e “ p a rticip a te in a pr ogr am o f test ing a nd, i f nec es s ary , tr eatm entfors ubs t ance abus e as di r ect ed by t he pr obat i on offi cer unt i l s uch t i m e as t he defe ndanti s r el eas ed fr om t he pr ogr am by t he pr obat i on offi cer , ” and “ cont r i but e t o t he cos tof s ervi ces foranys uch t r eatm ent
. ” ( A pp. 4. ) D oe w as r es ent ence d pur s uantt o a s eal ed R ul e 35( b) m ot i on on A ugus t1, 2007, t o 12 m onths of im p ri so n m en t, w h ich a m o u n ted to ti m e serv ed , an d h is 4 y ea rs of s upervi s ed r el eas e bega n on A ugus t7. W h ile o n su p e rv ise d re lea se , D o e e n ro lled in th e T riS tate B u sin e ss In stitu te’ s A c a d e m y o f C o sm e to lo g y to lea rn to5 be a ba rber

. I n a l etter t o D oe’ s pr obat i on offi cer , a s chool ad m inistrator d esc ri b ed D o e as “a g rea t stu d en t” w h o w as “ v ery d e d ic a te d ” a n d h a d m a d e th e D e a n ’s lis t. ( S e a l e d A p p . 3 6 .) T h ro u g h o u t h is s u p e rv ise d re lea se , D o e k e p t h is a p p o in tm e n ts w ith h is p ro b a tio n o f

f ice r a n d p a rticip a te d in a m e n tal h e a lth t r eatm entpr ogr am for hi s drug addi ct i on. D e sp ite th e se p o sitiv e e f f o rts, D o e w a s n o t su c c e ss f u l in r efr ai ni ng fr om t he us e of c ocai ne. O n February 27, A pr i l 7, and A pr i l 10 of 2008, D oe s ubm i t t ed ur i ne s ampl es t o hi s pr obat i on o f f ice r th a t tes ted p o s it iv e f o r c o c a in e . In a n e f

f o rt to a id h is r ehabi l i t at i on, D oe w as offe r ed t he opt i on t o w ai ve a he ar i ng on th e se v io latio n s in e x c h a n g e f o r m o d if ica tio n o f th e ter m s o f

h is s upervi s ed r el eas e. H e ac cept ed thi s w ai ver , and hi s r el eas e w as m o d if ied to in c lu d e 1 8 0 d a y s o f h o m e c o n f

in e m e n t w ith e lec tro n ic m o n it o r in g a n d p a rticip a tio n in a m e n tal h e a lth tr ea tm en t pro g ram ap p rov ed b ythe p rob ati o n o ff icer. T he new condi t i ons di d not , how ever , h av e any s ubs t ant i al effecton D oe’ s coca i ne us e. O n M ay12, M ay19, and J une 3 of 2008 , D o e agai n s ubm i t t ed ur i ne s ampl es t hat t es t ed pos i t i ve forcoca i ne. O n J ul y2, 2008 , D o e’s pr obat i on o ff icer filed a p eti ti o n o n su p erv ised release in the D istri ct C o u rt not i ng t hatD oe h ad subm i t t ed s i x coca i ne- pos i t i ve ur i ne s ampl es s i nce the begi nni ng of hi s s upervi s ed r el eas e. A tt he r eques tof the pr obat i on offi cer , the D i s t r i ctC our tent er ed an o rd e r o n Ju ly 7 , 2 0 0 8 , m o d if y in g D o e ’s s u p e rv ise d re lea se to a g a in in c lu d e 1 8 0 d a y s o f h o m e c o n f in e m e n t w it h e lec tro n ic m oni t or i ng and part i ci pat i on i n a ment al heal th t r eatm ent p rog ram ap p rov ed b ythe p rob ati o n o ff icer.6 A gai n, t he m odi fi cat i ons di d notdet erD oe fr om hi s drug us e. O n N ovember4, 2 0 0 8 , D o e’ s pr obat i on offi cerfi l ed a s econd pe t i t i on on s upervi s ed r el eas e, not i ng D oe had s ubm i t t ed s i x m or e ur i ne s ampl es t hat t es t ed pos i t i ve forcoca i ne: J ul y8, Sept em b er 3 0 , O ct ober3, O ct ober7, O ct ober14, and O ct ober21 of 2008. T he pet i t i on cat al ogs t he ut t erfai lur e of D oe’s r ehab i l i t at i ve ef

fort s: D ur i ng t he cour s e of t he def endant ’ s s upervi s i on, he has been pos i t i v e fo rcoca i ne on 18 di ffe r ent occa s i ons . H e has been gi ven the oppor tuni t yof i npat i ent and outpat i ent drug t r eatm ent , and l ocal s oci al s ervi ces of o u tpat i entm ent al heal t h, and hous i ng as s i s t ance . T he def endantw as pl ace d on th e e lec tro n ic m o n ito r o n Ju ly1 5 , 2 0 0 8 , w h ich d id n o t c u rb h is ille g a l d ru g u s a g e . . . ( A pp. 47. ) T he pr obat i on offi cerr eques t ed an or dert hatD oe appea rand s how caus e w hyhi s s upervi s ed r el eas e s houl d notbe r evoked. A t th e sh o w ca u se h ea ri n g , D o e re q u ested o n e m o re oppor tuni t yt o compl yw i t h the t erm s of hi s s upervi s ed r el eas e. T he g ov ernm ent agr eed, on t he co nd i t i on that “this i s hi s l ast chanc e. ” ( Seal ed A pp. 39. ) O n N ovember24, 2008, t he D i s t r i ct C o u rtrev o k ed D o e’s su p erv ised r el ea se a n d im p o sed a n ew term o f su p e rv ise d re lea se o f 3 6 m o n th s, a n d p lac e d h im o n e lec tro n ic m o n ito rin g f

o r six m o n th s , to ru n c o n se c u tiv e lyw ith h is o n g o in g te rm o f m o n ito ri n g f ro m th e p ri o r m o d if

ic a tio n . (I

d. at 4 0 .)7 Do e ’ s “ l a s t c h a n c e ” p r o v e d t o b e a n o t h e rf a i l u r e . On M ay6, 2009, D oe’ s pr obat i on offi cerfi l ed a thi r d pet i t i on on s upervi s ed r el eas e bas ed on t w o m or e ur i ne s ampl es t hatt es t ed pos i t i ve forcoca i ne and D oe’ s admi s s i on on A pr i l 13, 2009, t hat he had us ed coc ai ne duri ng t he pr ece di ng w eeke nd. T he D i s t r i ct C our tagai n convened a s how caus e hea r i ng atw hi ch D oe a d m itt e d th e v io latio n s. A t se n ten c in g , th e g o v e rn m e n t in iti a lly ar gued thatD oe w as m aki ng “a l aughi ng s t ock of ours upervi s ed r el eas e s y s t em” and t hathe sh o u ld s erve 36 mont hs in c a rc e ra tio n w ith n o s u p e rv is e d re le a s e . (I d. at 46 -47 ). D o e’s c o u n s e l s u g g e ste d a se n ten c in g ra n g e o f 4 to 1 0 m o n th s, o r in anyeventno gr eat er t han 18 mont hs , of i ncar cer at i on fol l ow ed byaddi t i onal s upervi s ed r el eas e. T he D i stri ctC ou rtthen revoke d D oe’s s up e rvi sed rel ease and i m pos ed a s ent ence of 24 m ont hs of i ncar cer at i on. I n doi ng s o, t he j udge expl ai ned: W e ll, w h a t I a m g o in g to d o h e re is, I a m g o in g to i m pos e a s ent ence of 24 m ont hs w i t h no supervi si on . I am no tdo i ng i tbec a u se y ou – so m uch bec aus e y ou vi ol at ed the l aw , butI am doi ng i ti n an att empt t o pr ot ect y o u fr om y our s el f. Y ou know , a s er i ous addi ct i on l i ke that can onl yhave one fi nal r es ul t , and w e don’ tw ant i tt o happen w i t h y ou. (I d. a t 5 3 .) D o e o b

jec ted to th is re a so n in g , n o tin g “ [ t]h e re is T hi r d C ir cu itcas e l aw thatI bel i eve s t ands forthe pr opos i t i on th a t yo u c a n ’t in c a r c e r a te s o m e o n e f o r t re a tm e n t p u rp o s e s .” (I d. )Th e Di s t r i c tCo u r th a d j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r1 8 U. S

. C. 3 § 3231. T hi s C our t has j ur i s di ct i on under 28 U

. S. C

. § 1291 and 1 8 U
. S

. C

. § § 3 7 4 2 (a)(1)-(2). 8 T he governm entt hen modi fi ed i t s r eques t and as ked that 1 2 mon t h s s u p e r v i s e d r e l e a s e b e i mpo s e d f o l l o wi n g th e 24 m ont hs of i ncar cer at i on and t hat t he j udge m ake “cl earthaty ou ar e nots ent enci ng hi m for t he purpos e of ke epi ng hi m cl ean, but i n r es pons e t o t he vi ol at i ons w hi ch he c om m i t t ed[. ] ” (I d. a t 5 5 .) T he D i s t r i ctC our t m odi fi ed t he sent ence t o i ncl ude s upervi s ed r el eas e but di d nots ubs t ant i al l yr etr eatfr om i t s r at i onal e forthe se n ten c e , res p o n d in g , “I c a n ’t sa yn o b e c a u s e th e se n ten c e is cert ai nl yi nt ended f

or , i n par t t o keep hi m cl ean. B utagai n, he w oul dn’t b e h ere [] i f he ha dn’ tvi ol at ed the l aw . So, fort hat dual r eas on, w e ar e i m pos i ng s ent ence . ” (I d. at55- 56. ) T he D i s t r i ctC o u rt t hen i m pos ed a 24 mont h s ent ence of i m pr i s onm ent fol l ow ed by 12 m onths of s upervi s ed rel ea s e. T hi s t i m el yappea l fol l ow ed. 3 II. T hi s C our tr evi ew s the pr ocedur al and s ubs t ant i ve r eas onabl enes s of a di s t r i ct cour t ’ s s ent ence upon r evoca t i on of s u p e rv is e d re le a s e f

o r a b u s e o f

d is c re tio n . See U

ni t ed Stat es v. B ungar , 478 F. 3d 540, 5 4 2 ( 3d C i r . 2007)

. Pr ocedur al l y , the s ent enci ng cour tm us tgi ve “r at i onal and m eani ngful c o n s id e ra tio n ” to th e re le v a n t § 3 5 5 3 (a ) f a c to rs . U

ni t ed Stat es v. G r i er , 4 7 5 F
. 3 d 5 5 6 , 5 7 1 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 7 ) (e n b an c). W h ere p roc e d u ral reaso n ab lene ss turn s o n a q u esti o n o f statuto ry i nt erpr et at i on, w e conduct pl enaryr evi ew of the meani ng of the9 s t a t u te
. See U

ni t ed Stat es v. C ol em an , 451 F. 3d 154, 156 ( 3d C ir. 2 0 0 6 ). If

a se n ten c in g c o u rt f

o llo w e d th e a p p ro p ria te pr oc e d u r e s i n i mpo s i n g t h e s e n t e n c e , we th e n l o o k t o whe t h er th e s e n te n c e its e lf w a s s u b s ta n tiv e ly re a s o n a b le

. See U ni t ed Stat es v. C ooper , 437 F. 3d 324, 330 ( 3d C i r . 2006)

. Subst ant i ve r eas onablene s s i nqui r es i nt o “w hethert he fi nal s ent ence , w her everi tm ayl i e w i t hi n t he perm i s s i bl e s t atut oryr ange, w as pr emi s ed upon appr opr i at e and j udi ci ous cons i der at i on of the rel evantfac t or s . ” U

ni t ed Stat es v. Schw ei t

z er , 4 5 4 F. 3d 197, 204 ( 3d C i r . 2006)

. A bs ent pr ocedur al err or , w e w i l l aff i r m the se n ten c in g c o u rt “ u n les s n o re a so n a b le s e n ten c in g c o u rt w o u ld have i m pos ed the s ame se nt ence on t hat par t i cul ardefe ndantfor t he r eas ons t he di s t r i ct cour t pr ovi ded. ” U ni t ed St at es v. Tom ko , 5 6 2 F
. 3 d 5 5 8 , 5 6 8 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 9 ). III . D oe’ s cl ai m s of proc edur al and s ubs t ant i ve unr easo n abl enes s s t em from es s ent i al l yt he s ame cont ent i on – t hatt he D i s t r i ct C our t err ed bycons i der i ng D oe’ s need f ordrug r ehabi l i t at i on i n s et t i ng the l ength of hi s po st- revocat i on i m pr i s onm ent
. W e w i l l addr es s hi s ar gum ent s i n turn. A . P roced u ral R eason ab l en ess D o e c o n ten d s th a t h is s e n ten c e is p ro c e d u r a lly unr eas onabl e bec aus e the D i s t r i ct C o u rti s forbi dden under18 U
. S. C

. § 3582( a) , 28 U
. S. C

. § 994( k) , and ourhol di ng i n U ni t ed S ta tes v . M

a n ze lla , 475 F. 3d 152 ( 3d C i r . 2007) , fr om c o n sid e rin g h is n e e d f

o r d ru g re h a b ili tatio n in im p o sin g a p o str evoca t i on t erm o f im p ri s onm ent
. B eca us e w e hol d t hatthe10 p lain lan g u a g e a n d o p e ra ti o n o f th e sta tu te g o v e rn in g p o strevocati on sent encing, 18 U
. S

. C

. §§ 35 83 (e) and (g) , perm i t s a d istric t co u rt to c o n sid e r m e d ic a l an d re h a b ili tativ e n e e d s in im p o sin g a ter m o f

p o st-re v o c a tio n im p riso n m e n t, w e w ill aff i r m t he s ent ence as pr ocedur al l yr eas onabl e. T hi s cas e tur ns on cert ai n p i v o t a l d i s t i n ct i ons betw een the st atutes go verni ng po st -convict i on sent encing an d those governi ng pos t
- r evoca t i on s ent enci ng. D ur i ng pos t
- convi ct i on s ent enci ng, t he di s t r i ct cour t s et s both t he t erm of i m pr i s onm ent an d t he s ubs equentper i od, i f any , of s upervi s ed r el eas e. 18 U .S .C . § § 3 5 8 1 (a ), 3 5 8 3 (a ). T h e d istric t co u rt is d ire c ted to c o n sid e r a v a rie tyo f

f a c to rs in im p o sin g a n a p p ro p ria te p o stconvi ct i on s ent ence, incl udi ng “the nee d .

. . t o pr ovi de the defe ndantw i t h needed educat i onal orvocat i onal t r ai ni ng, m edical care, or ot her corr ect i on a l treat m ent i n the m ost eff ect i ve manne r . ” I

d. § 3 5 5 3 (a )(2 )(D ). H o w e v e r, p o stco n v ict ion im p ri so n m en t i s also li m it ed b y 1 8 U
. S

. C

. § 3 5 8 2 (a), underw hi ch s ent enci ng cour t s ar e i ns t ruct ed: T he court , i n det erm i ni ng w hethert o i m pos e a t erm of i m pr i s onm ent , and, i f a term of i m pr i s onm enti s t o be i m pos ed, i n det erm i ni ng t he l ength of t he t erm , s hal l cons i der t he fac t or s set fo rth in se cti o n 3 5 5 3 (a) to the ex tent that theyare a p p l ic a b le , r ecogni

z i ng thati m

pr is onm ent

is not an appr opr i at e m eans of pr om ot i ng cor r ect i on and r ehabi l i tat i on .T hi s m i r r or s t he mandat e of § 994( k) , w hi ch i n s truct s the 4 Sent enci ng C om m i s s i on t o “i ns ur e t hat t he gui del i nes r efl ectt he i nappr opr i at ene ss o f i m pos i ng a s ent ence t o a t erm of i m pr i s onm entfor t he purpos e of r ehabi l i t at i ng t he def endantor pr ovi di ng t he defenda nt w i t h neede d educa t i onal orvocat i onal t r ai ni ng, m edi cal car e, orot hercorr ect i onal tr eatm ent
. ” 28 U .S .C . § 9 9 4 (k ); se e a lso Ma n ze lla , 4 7 5 F
. 3 d a t 1 5 8 n .2 ( “§ 994( k) i s a di r ect i ve t o the U

. S. Sent enci ng C om m i s s i on, not to se n tenc ing co u rt s. ”). 11 (em p h asis ad d ed ). 4 I n Man zell a , w e w er e as ked t o r es ol ve the appa r ent confl i ctbetw een a di s tr i ct cour t ’ s obl i gat i on t o cons i derm edi cal and r ehabi l i t at i ve nee ds under§ 3553( a) ( 2) ( D ) and t he p r o h i b i t i on on s e n t e n c e s o f i mp r i s o n me n tf

o rt h o s e s a me purpos es under§ 3582( a)

. 475 F
. 3 d at 1 56- 58. T he di s t r i ct cour ti n Ma n ze lla had i m pos ed a pos t
- convi ct i on s ent ence of 30 m ont hs – near l yfourt i m es t he m axi m um G ui del i nes r ange – f or t he expr es s purpos e of qual i fy i ng the def endantforthe B ur eau o f P riso n s 5 0 0 -h o u r d ru g tre a tm e n t p ro g ra m , p u rsu a n t to § 3 5 5 3 (a )( 2 )( D ). I

d. at 155. C ons i der i ng w hethert hi s vi ol at ed t he l i m i t at i ons of § 3582( a) , w e hel d t hat t he w or ds “s ent ence ” i n § 3553( a) and “i m pr i s onm ent ” i n § 3582( a) w er e not co t e r mi n o u s

– “ i mpr i s o n me n t ” i s me r e l y o n e f or m of s ent e n c i n g , whe r e a s a “ s e n t e n c e ” mi g h ti n c l u d e o t h e rth i ngs s u c h a s f

in e s , r e s t i tu tio n , o r s u p e rv is e d re le a s e . I d. at158. T hus , w e hel d t hat“court s m us tcons i der a defenda nt ’ s need f or r ehabi l i t at i on w hen devi s i ng an appr opr i at e s ent ence ( pur s uant t o § 3553( a) ( 2) ( D ) ) , butm aynotcarr yo u t tha t goal byI n l i ghtof thi s concession , w e nee d notpr obe w hether 5 th e D istric t C o u r t’ s re a so n in g c lea rlye v in c e s a n in ten t to i m pr i s on D oe forpurpos es of r ehabi l i t at i on. W e w i l l as s um e, as t he p art i es agree, t hat i tdo es. 12 i m pr is onm ent

( pur s uantt o § 3582( a) )

. ” I d. W e ther efor e r ead § 3 5 8 2 ( a ) t o m e a n t h a t , a ti n i t i a l s e n t e n c i n g , “ d e f e n d a n t s [ m a y] n o tb e s e n tt o p r i s o n o rh e l d t he r e fo r a s p e c i f i c l e n g t h o f

t i me forthe s ol e purpos e of r ehabi l i t at i on. ” I d. at 161. B eca us e the di s t r i ctcour ti n Ma n ze lla ext ended the dur at ion of the defe ndan t’ s i m pr i s onm entforthe expr es s purpos e of drug re h a b ili tatio n , the po st -convict i on sent en c e v io late d th e m a n d a te o f § 3 5 8 2 (a ) a n d w a s th e re f o re p ro c e d u ra lly u n re a s o n a b le

. I d. T h e g o v ern m en t c o n ce d es th at, if th is ha d b ee n D o e’s in iti a l sent encing h e a rin g , the se n ten c e w o u ld b e u n q u e stio n a b ly flaw ed u n d er Ma n ze lla . ( See G o v t. B r. 1 5 (n o tin g th a t, i f Ma n ze lla appl i ed t o t hes e fa ct s , “i ti s unl i kel yt hat anyar gum ent coul d over come t he D i s t r i ct C o u rt ’ s s t at ement s of D oe’ s need forr ehabi l i t at i on”)

. ) H ow ever , t he gover nm ent ar gues thatthe 5 s t atut or yr es t r i ct i on on ext endi ng i m pr i s onm entfor purpos es of r ehabi l i t at i on t hatdi r ect ed the out com e i n M a n ze lla does not a p p l yi n s e n t e n c i n g o n r e v o c a t i o n o f s u p e r v i s e d r e l e a s e . We agr ee t hat , al t hough M

a n ze lla cl ear l yforbade i m pr i s onm entfor p u rp o se s o f d ru g re h a b ili tatio n in p o st-c o n v ictio n se n ten c in g , it d i d n o tr e s o l v e t h e q u e s t i o n p r e s e n t l yb e f o r e t h i s C o u r t
. We obs erved i n Ma n ze lla , i n a footnot e, t hatpos t
- r evoca t i on s ent enci ng “i s an i s s ue ent i r el y di ffe r ent fr om det erm i ni ng w hat an i ni t i al s ent ence s houl d be, as t he r evoca t i on of super vi s ed r el eas e is governed by18 U

. S. C

. §§ 3583( e) and ( g) , w hi chW e d o n o t ad o p t t h e re a so n in g o f th e F if th C irc u it 6 opi ni on i n U

ni t ed Stat es v. G i ddi ngs , 37 F

. 3 d 1 091, 1096- 97 (5 th C ir. 1 9 9 4 ), to th e e x ten t th a t it c o n f licts w ith o u r h o ld in g in Ma n ze lla

. T he courti n G i ddi ngs loo k ed t o the l egi s l at i ve h isto ryo f § 3 5 8 2 (a ) to c o n c lu d e th a t it s re stric tio n s w e re o n ly m eantt o pr eventthe i m pos i t i on of s ent ence bas ed on r ehabi l i t at i on, as oppos ed t o the d u ra t i on o f s e n te n c e . I

d. at 1 0 9 6 & n .1 7 . W e c lea rlyd isa g re e d w ith th is a p p ro a c h in Ma n ze lla , w h e re w e h e ld th a t “d e f e n d a n ts [ m a y ] n o t b e se n t to pr i s on o r h e ld th e r e f

o r a s p e c i f i c l e n g t h o

f t i me f o r th e so le p u rpo se o f re h ab il it ati o n . ” 4 7 5 F
. 3 d at 16 1 (em p h asis ad d ed ). T h u s, to th e e x ten t Gi ddi ngs r el i es on an i nt erpr et at i on of § 3582( a) t hatw e r ej ect ed i n M a n ze lla , i t i s not per s uas i ve l aw 13 m andat e cons i der at i on of § 3553( a) , but notof § 3582( a)

. ” See i d. a t 1 6 0 n .4

. T h u s w e p o stu late d , w ith o u t d e c id in g , tha t p o str evoca t i on s ent ence s m i ghtbe tr eat ed di ffe r ent l yundert he s t atut e. W e now have an oppor tuni t yt o r es ol ve thi s ques t i on l e f to p e n b y Ma n ze lla , a n d , in d o in g so , to jo in o u r sis ter c irc u its w ho hav e h e ld t hat “di stri ctcou rt s m ay gi ve w ei ghtt o a defe ndant ’ s r ehabi l i t at ive needs w hen r evoki ng a t erm of s upervi s ed re l eas e and t hen s ubs equent l yr equi r i ng a def endant t o s erve partoral l of hi s new and pot ent i al l y ext ended t erm of s upervi s ed r el eas e i n pr i s on. ” U n itedS ta tes v . T

so sie , 376 F. 3d 1210, 1214 ( 10t h C i r . 2004) ( ci t i ng Un i t e d S ta t e s v . Br o wn , 224 F .3 d 1 2 3 7 , 1 2 4 2 (1 1 th C ir. 2 0 0 0 ); U n ited S ta tes v . T

h o rn e ll , 128 F .3 d 6 8 7 , 6 8 8 (8 th C ir. 1 9 9 7 ); U ni t ed Stat es v. Jack

s on , 70 F. 3d 8 7 4 , 8 7 9 -8 0 (6 th C ir. 1 9 9 5 ); U ni t ed St at es v. G i ddi ngs , 37 F. 3d 1 0 9 1 , 1 0 9 6 -9 7 (5 th C ir. 1 9 9 4 ); U ni ted St at es v. A nders on , 15 F
. 3 d 2 7 8 , 2 8 2 (2d C ir

. 1 9 9 4 )). 6in th is c irc u it. 14 W e b e g in o u r a n a ly s is w ith th e lan g u a g e o f th e sta tu te g o v e r n i n g r e v o c a t i o n o f s u p e r v i s e d r e l e a s e . Un d e r 1 8 U. S

. C. § § 3 5 8 3 (e)(3) a n d (g), a d istri ct co u rt m ay rev o k e a d ef en d an t’ s s upervi s ed r el eas e and s ent ence thatdefe ndant t o s erve partor al l of t he r emai nder of hi s s ent ence i n pr i s on. R evoca t i on t akes t w o form s : di s cr et i onaryand mandat ory . Sect i on 3583( e) governs di s cr et i onary r evoca t i on. A di s t r i ct cour tm aychoos e, “a fter co n side ri n g the f ac tors set fo rth in se cti o n 3 5 5 3 (a)(1), (a )( 2 )( B ), ( a )( 2 )( C ), (

a ) ( 2 ) ( D) , (a )( 4 ), ( a )( 5 ), ( a )( 6 ), a n d (a )( 7 ),” t o “r evoke a t erm o f supervi s ed r el eas e, and r equi r e the defe ndantt o s erve i n pr i s on al l or par t of t he t erm of s upervi s ed r el eas e author i zed by s t atut e forthe [unde r l y i ng] offe ns e. ” I d. § 3583( e) ( 3) ( empha sis added)

. Sect i on 3553( a) ( 2) ( D ) , w hi ch C ongr es s e x p r e s s l yi n c o rp o r a t e di n t o p o s t
- r e v o c at i on s ent enci ng cons i der at i ons , perm i t s a s ent enci ng courtt o cons i dert he nee d “t o pr ovi de the def

endantw i t h neede d educa t i onal orvocat i onal t r ai ni ng, m edi cal car e, o r othercorr ect i onal t r eatm enti n the m os teff ect i ve manner . ” I

d. at § 3 5 5 3 (a)(2)(D ). S ec ti o n 3 5 8 3 (g), on the o ther h an d , g o v ern s m an d atory r evoca t i on i n t he eve ntthe def endantcomm i t s one of the s peci fi ed off

ens es , i ncl udi ng pos s es s i o n o f a contr ol l ed s ubs t ance or f

ail ing a drug t es tm or e than thr ee t i m es i n one y ea r. 1 8 U
. S

. C

. § § 3 5 8 3 (g)(1 ), (4). I n su ch ca se, “the co u rt s hal l r evoke the t erm of s uperv i s ed r el eas e and r equi r e the defe ndantt o s erve a t erm of i m pr i s onm en t nott o exce ed the m axi m um t erm of i m pr i s onm entauthor i zed [ bys t atut e fort he under l y ing o ffens e]

. ” I d. W h ile § 3 5 8 3 (g ) d o e s n o t ex p re ss lyT he D i s t r i ctC ou rt pr efa ced the s how caus e hea r i ng by 7 s ta tin g , “ U n d e r 1 8 U n ite d S ta te s C o d e , S e c tio n 3 5 8 3 (e )( 3 ), a C our tm ay revoke the t erm of s upervi s ed r el eas e i f i tbe found bya pr eponder ance of t he evi dence t hatt he def endantvi ol at ed a condi t i on of hi s s upervi s ed r el eas e. A nd , o f cours e, her e he h a s a d m itt e d th e se v io la tio n s s o th e p re p o n d e ra n c e sta n d a rd is s a tis f ie d .” (S e a le d A p p . 4 5 .) 15 r equi r e cons i der at i on of th e § 3553(a ) fac t or s , i tdoes not pr ohi bi tt he s ent enci ng cour tfr om doi ng s o. A l t hough w e ar e confi dent t hat D oe’ s r epea t ed fa i l ur e of drug t es t s qual i fi ed hi m form andat oryr evocat i on under § 3 5 8 3 (g ), it a p p e a rs th a t th e D istric t C o u rt p ro c e e d e d u n d e r its d iscreti o n aryau tho ri typ u rsua n t t o § 3 5 8 3 (e)(3). F u rth er the re 7 i s no di s put e thatt he D i s t r i ctC our ti m pos ed the per i od of i ncar cer at i on at l eas ti n par tt o “i ns ur e [s i c] t hathe comes out clea n . ” (S ea led A p p . 5 5
. ) T h e q u esti o n b ef o re u s is th ere fo re w hethert he admoni t i on of § 3582( a) t hat“i m pr i s onm enti s not an appr opr i at e means of pr om ot i ng cor r ect i on and r ehabi l i t at i on” pr ecl udes a di s t r i ctcour tfr om cons i der i ng r ehabi l i t at i ve nee ds w hen r evoki ng s upervi s ed r el eas e and re q u irin g th e d e f

e n d a n t to se rv e th e re m a in d e r o f h is s e n ten c e in pr i s on. W e a re n o t th e firstco u rtto co n fro n t th is qu esti o n . In U ni t ed Stat es v. A nders on , 1 5 F. 3 d 2 7 8 ( 2 d Ci r . 1 9 94) , t he Second C i r cui tw as fac ed w i t h a di s t ri ct court ’ s r evoca t i on of s upervi s ed r el eas e under§ 3583( e) and i m pos i t ion o f a 17 m ont h per i od of i m pr i s onm entbas ed on t he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s vi ewT he Second Ci r cui t , i n an u n publ i s hed dec i s i on, 8 s ubs equent l yr eac hed a d i ffe r entout come w i t houtexpl anat i on or ci t at i on t o A nders on . See U ni t ed St at es v. Y

ehuda , 238 Fed. A ppx. 712, 713 ( 2d C i r . 2007) ( qual i fy ing defe ndantfordrug tr e a tm e n t p ro g ra m “ is n o t a p e rm is s ib le b a s is f o r in c re a s in g . . . 16 t hatt he d efe ndantr equi r ed “i nt ens i ve s ubs t ance abus e and ps y chol o g ical t r eatm enti n a s t ructur ed envi r onm ent
. ” I d. at 279. A s her e, t he def endantcl ai m ed thatt hi s cons i der at i on vi ol at ed the mandat e of § 3582( a) thati m pr i so n m ent notbe i m pos ed as a m eans of re habi l i t at i on. C ons i der i ng t he i nt erpl ay of the var i ous pr ovi s i ons , the courtr eas oned: [S ec ti o n 3 5 8 3 ] co n tem p lat es th at a d istri ct co u rt m ayr equi r e a per s on t o s erve t i m e i n pr i s on equal to the leng th o f the term o f su p erv ised release

. In det erm ini ng t he l ength of a pe r i od of s upervi s ed r el eas e, i t w i l l be r eca l l ed, a di s t r i ctcour tm ay cons i ders uch fa ct or s [as ] t he medi cal and corr ect i on al need s of t he o ffen der. B ecause those fac t or s m aybe consi d ere d i n det erm i ni ng the l ength of the per i od of s upervi s ed r el eas e and b e c a u se a d istric t co u rt m a yre q u ire a p e rso n to s erve i n pr i s on t he per i od of su p ervi s ed r el eas e, t he s t atut e cont empl at es thatthe medi cal and corr ect i onal needs of the off enderw i l l bearon the l ength of t i m e an of fende rs erv es in pr i s on fol l ow i ng r evoca t i on of s upervi s ed r el eas e. I d. at 28 2 (cit ati o n s o m itted). 8a t erm of i m pr i s onm entupon r evoca t i on of s upervi s ed r el eas e” ( ci t i ng § 3582( a) , § 994( k) , and M a n ze lla , 4 7 5 F
. 3 d at 16 1 )). 17 T he El eventh C i r cui ti n Un i t e d S ta t e s v . Br o wn , 224 F. 3d 1237, 1240 ( 11t h C i r . 2000) , r eac hed the s ame concl us i on. T he cour taff i r m ed a post

- r evoca t i on s ent ence of 24 m onths i m pos ed forthe purpos e of qu ali fy i ng the def endantforthe B ur eau of P ri so n s reside n ti al dru g trea tm en t pro g ram , h o lding , “a co u rt m aycons i dera def

endant ’ s r ehabi l i t at i ve nee ds w hen i m pos i ng a s peci fi c i ncar cer at i ve t erm fol l ow i ng r evoca t i on of s upervi s ed r el eas e. ” I

d. T h e c o u rt b a se d its c o n c lu sio n o n th e p lain lang u ag e a n d o p era ti o n o f § 3 5 8 3 (e)(3): Secti on 3583 cont empl at es t hatr ehabi l i t at i ve fac t or s w i l l be cons i der ed i n det erm i ni ng the l ength of supervi s ed r el eas e. Sect i on 3583( e) ( 3)
“ e x p re ss lyc o n tem p late s re q u irin g a n o f f e n d e r to s er v e t i me i n p r i s o n e q u a l t o h i s o r h e r p e r i od of s upervi s ed r el eas e, and a c our tm aycons i derthe m e d ica l an d c o rre c tio n a l n e e d s o f a n o f f e n d e r in d e te rm in in g t h e le n g th o f s u p e rv is e d re le a s e .” T h e r e f o re , itlo g ica llyf

o llo w s f ro m th e p lain l a ng ua ge of

s e c t i on 35 83 ( e ) ( 3) t ha tCongr e ss i nt end ed t hata courtm aycons i derthe corr ect i onal needs of a defe ndant i n det erm i ni ng t he lengt h of the def

endant ’ s i m pr i s onm entaft er r evoca t i on of s upervi s ed r el eas e.See a l so U n itedS ta tes v . H

e rg o tt , 5 6 2 F
. 3 d 9 6 8 (8th C ir

. 9 2 0 0 9 ); U nited S tates v. P i tre , 5 0 4 F
. 3 d 6 5 7 (7 th C ir

. 2 0 0 7 ); U ni t ed Stat es v. C r udup , 4 6 1 F
. 3 d 4 3 3 (4th C ir

. 2 0 0 6 ). 18 I d. at1242 ( quot i ng A nders on , 1 5 F
. 3 d at 28 3 ). O urrea di ng of § 3583( e) , and the def tanal y s i s of our fel l ow cour t s of appea l s , l eads us t o t he s am e c o ncl us i on: C o n g re s s inten d ed d istri ct co u rt s to c o n side r a d ef en d an t’ s m e d ica l an d re h a b ili tativ e n e e d s in d e ter m in in g w h e th e r to r evoke s upervi s ed r el eas e and the dur at i on of i m pr i s onm entt hat i s appr opr i at e upon r evoca t i on. T hi s i s t he m os tnatur al r eadi ng 9 of a s tat u te thatpr ovi des fordi s cr et i onaryr evoca t i on condi t i oned upon a di s t r i ctcourt ’ s co n s i der at i on of a defe ndant ’ s need f

or “m ed ic al car e, orothercorr ect i onal tre a tm e n t.” 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 (a )(2 )(D ); i d. § 3 5 8 3 (e ). T h is r eadi ng al s o comport s w i t h t he oper at i on of § 3583( c) , w hi ch di r ect s t hata di s t r i ctcour t , w hen s ett i ng t he t erm of s upervi s ed re lea se a t in iti a l se n ten c in g , “s h a ll co n sid e r th e f a c to rs s e t f

o rth i n [s ect i on 3553( a) ( 2) ( D ) ] , ” i n clud ing a defe ndant ’ s need f or “ me d i c a l c a r e , o ro t h e rc o r r e c t i o n a l t r e a t me n t
. ” 1 8 U. S

. C. §§ 3583( c) , 3553( a) ( 2) ( D )

. D i s cr et i onary r evoca t i on under § 3 5 8 3 (e ) p e rm its a d is tr ict c o u rt to “ re q u ire th e d e f e n d a n t to serv e in p ri so n all o r pa rto f th e term o f su p erv ised release

. ” It w oul d t hus be an odd c ont r adi ct i on i n t he stat u t e i f § 3583( c) perm i t t ed a courtt o cons i derr ehabi l i t at i on i n s ett i ng the t erm of s upervi s ed r el eas e atthe i ni t i al s ent enci ng, but f o rbade that s ame cons i der at i on – des pi t e the expr es s inclu s i on of § 3553( a) ( 2) ( D ) as a r el evantpos t
- r evoca t i on fac t or– once aW e ar e not per s uaded i n t hi s r egar d byD oe’ s ar gum ent 10 t hatt he Su p reme C our t ’ s admoni t i on i n Johns on v. U ni t ed Stat es , 5 2 9 U .S . 6 9 4 , 7 0 1 ( 2 0 0 0 ), th a t w e m u st “ a ttribu te pos tr evoca t i on p en alt ies t o the o ri g inal co n v ict ion , ” r equi r es that t he s ubs t ant i ve cons i der at i ons perm i t t ed i n pos t
- co n v i ct i on s ent enci ng m us t s i m i l ar l y act as l i m i t at i ons on pos t
- r evoca t i on s ent enci ng. I n Johns on , t he Supr eme C our tcons i der ed w hether the a m en d m en t of

§ 3 5 8 3 (h), pe rm itti n g co u rt s to re q u ir e a d d iti o n a l su p e rv ise d re lea se a f te r th e c o m p letio n o f

p o str evoca t i on i ncar cer at i on, coul d appl yr et roact i vel yw i t hout vi ol at i ng t he ex p o st fa c to cl aus e. T hus in n o ti ng t hat “pos t r evoca t i on penal t i es rel at e t o t he or i gi nal offe ns e, ” 529 U .S . at 7 0 0 , the C o u rt w a s o b se rv in g th a t Jo h n so n ’s p o stre v o c a tio n se n ten c e c a n n o t ex c e e d th e m a x im u m p e n a ltyin pl ace att h e t i m e of hi s under l y i ng offe ns e. T he s upervi s ed r el eas e s t atut e al r eadypr ovi des forpr ot ect i on agai ns tt he o u t c o m e f

o rb i d d e n b y Johns on byr es t r i ct i ng pos t
- r evoca t i on i ncar cer at i on t o a t erm “nott o ex cee d t he maxi m um t erm of im p ri s o n m e n t a u th o ri z e d [ b ys ta tu te f o r t h e o ri g in a l o f

f e n s e ].” 1 8 U .S. C

. § 3 58 3(g)( 4). N ow here do es Johns on s u g g e s tth at l i m i t at i ons on s ubs t ant i ve cons i der at i ons i n pos t
- convi ct i on s ent enci ng – s uch as t he pr ohi bi t i on on i m pr i s onm ent for r ehabi l i t at i on i n § 3582( a) – m us t al s o appl yt o pos t
- r evoca t i on s ent enci ng. W e do not , ther efor e, r ead Johns on to req u ir e in c o rp o ra tio n o f th e re stric tio n s in § 3 5 8 2 (a ) i n to p o str evoca t i on s ent enci ng i n contr avent i on of the pl ai n l anguage of § 3 5 8 3 (e). 19 su p e rv ise d re lea se is v io late d a n d its d u ra ti o n is s e rv e d in i ncar cer at i on. 1020 A cc o rdin g ly , w e h o ld tha t th e D istri ct C o u rt d id n o t err i n s et t i ng t he dur at i on of D o e’s post

- r evoca t i on i ncar cer at i on bas ed, i n par t , on hi s need f ordrug r ehabi l i t at i on. T he s ent ence w as t her efor e pr ocedur al l yr eas onabl e. B . S u b st an ti ve R eason ab l en ess A l t hough D oe pr i nci pal l yr el i es on h i s s t a tu t o rya r gum ent i n chal l engi ng hi s pos t
- r evoca t i on s ent ence , he al s o ar gues t hat t he 24 m ont hs pos t
- r evoca t i on i ncar cer at i on and 12 mont hs s u p e rv is e d re le a s e is “ w ild ly d is p ro p o rt io n a te ” a n d “ e x c e s s iv e ,” and t h er efor e s ubs t ant i vel yunr eas onabl e. ( D oe B r . 17. ) O ur re v ie w f o r s u b s ta n tiv e re a s o n a b le n e s s is “ h ig h ly d e f e re n tia l,” Bu n g ar , 4 7 8 F. 3d at543, and D oe bea r s t he bur den of demonstr at i ng t hat “no r eas onabl e s ent enci ng courtw oul d have i m pos ed t he s ame s ent ence on [hi m ] fort he r eas ons t he di s t r i ct cour tpr ovi ded. ” Tom ko , 562 F. 3d at568. H e has fai l ed t o m eet tha t b u rde n h ere , an d w e w il l aff irm the D istri ct C o u rt ’s s ent ence as s ubs t ant i vel yr eas onabl e. T he D i s t r i ctC our ti m p os ed D oe’ s pos t
- r evoca t i on s ent ence of 24 m onths o f inc ar cer at i on and 12 mont hs of su p erv ised release b ase d o n tw o p ri n cipa l j u sti fica ti o n s: D o e’s r epea t ed vi ol at i ons of the term s of hi s s upervi s ed r el eas e, and D oe’ s need f

ordrug r ehabi l i tat ion

. T hes e j us t i fi cat i ons ar e a r eas onabl e appl i cat i on of the rel ev an t§ 3553( a) fac t or s t o the par t i cul arfac t s of thi s cas e. A s di s cus s ed above , § 3583( e) r equi r es cons i der at i on of the def endant ’ s n e e df

o r“ me d i c al car e, o r oth er c o rrecti o n al trea tm en t. ” 1 8 U
. S

. C

. § § 3 5 8 3 (c), 3553( a) ( 2) ( D )

. D o e’s r epea t ed vi ol at i ons of hi s s upervi s ed rel ease, his adm i t t ed abuse of con t rol l ed subst ances, and h is21 demonstr at ed i nabi l i t y t o r ehabi l i t at e hi m s el f thr ough outpat i ent drug t r eatm entl ed t he D i s t r i ctC our tt o r eas onabl yconcl ude that D o e need ed to be k ept outof reach o f t he instrum ents of h is addi ct i on. T hough, as t he D i s t r i ctC our t obs erved, i ncar cer at i on i s an i m per fec t m eans t o t hatend, i ti s notan unr eas onabl e one undert he s t atut e. F in a lly , w e re

jec t D o e ’s a rg u m e n t th a t th e se n ten c e itse lf i s “ex c e s s i v e . ” As th e Di s t r i c tCou rta c k n o wl e d g e d , the advi s or yGui d e l i n e s r a n g e f o r Doe ’ s pos t
- r evoca t i on im p ri so n m en t w as 4 to 10 m o n ths ba sed o n h is cri m inal h ist o ry ca tego ry o f II an d a G rad e C v iolati o n . U
. S

. S

. G

. § 7 B 1

. 4 (a). H ow ever , t he G ui del i nes pr ovi de that “[ w ] her e the or i gi nal sent ence w as the resul tof a d ow nw ard dep arture (e .g . as a r ew ar d fors ubs t ant i al as s i s t ance )

. . . an upw ar d departur e may b e w arran ted.” U

. S

. S

. G

. § 7 B 1

. 4 , cm t. n . 4

. H ere , D o e’s G u id e lin e s ra n g e se n ten c e o f 6 0 to 6 5 m o n th s w a s in iti a lly r educe d t o 30 m ont hs forcooper at i on w i t h t he governm entand t h e n f u r t h e rr e d u c e d t o 12 mo n t h s , wh i c h a mo u n t e d t o t i me s erved. H i s 24 m ont h pos t
- r evoca t i on i m pr i s onm entw as t hus r eas onabl e i n l i ghtof the ea r l i erl eni encyhe r ece i ved. T he addi t i on of 12 m ont hs of s upervi s ed r el eas e upon the conc l us i on o f D o e ’s im p riso n m e n t b rin g s h is p o st-r e v o c a tio n se n ten c e to th e s ta tu to ry m a x im u m o f th re e y e a rs . S ee 1 8 U. S

. C. § 3 5 8 3 (b )(2 ) (lim iti n g su p e rv ise d re lea se f o r C las s C f

e lo n ies to t h r e e y e a r s )

. G i v e n t h e e g r e g i o u s n e s s o f D o e ’ s v i o l a t i o n s , we ca n n o t saythat n o rea so n ab le c o u rt w o u ld im p o se th e statuto ry ma x i mu m. W e th ere fo re rejec t D o e’s c h all en g e b ase d o n su b stan ti ve r eas onabl enes s , and w e w i l l aff i r m the Di s t r i ctC our t ’ s s ent ence .22 I V . C oncl usi on For the fore goi ng r eas ons , w e w i l l aff i r m the D i s t r i ct C our t ’ s r evoca t i on of D oe’ s s upervi s ed r el eas e and i m pos i t i on of a 24 m on t h t erm of i m pri sonm ent foll ow ed by a 1 2 m o n th t erm of s upervi s ed r el eas e.