Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joseph JAMES, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-01-27
Citations: 467 F. App'x 661
Docket Number: No. 11-30033
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joseph JAMES, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 467
Pages: 661–662

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joseph JAMES, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 11-30033.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 17, 2012.
Filed Jan. 27, 2012.
Jeffrey Backhus, Assistant U.S., Helen J. Brunner, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Seattle, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Jason Brett Saunders, Law Offices of Gordon & Saunders, PLLC, Seattle, WA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: LEAVY, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App.P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Joseph James appeals from the 30-month sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we vacate and remand based on intervening authority-
James contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to exercise its discretion in imposing the above-Guidelines sentence without considering James's individualized circumstances. The record does not support this contention.
However, after James's sentencing, the Supreme Court issued Tapia v. United States, — U.S.-, 131 S.Ct. 2382, 2389, 180 L.Ed.2d 357 (2011). In reliance on that decision, we then held that "prison, whether as an initial sentence or on revocation of supervised release, can be imposed and the duration selected only for purposes of retribution, deterrence, and incapacitation, not rehabilitation." United States v. Grant, 664 F.3d 276, 282 (9th Cir.2011). Because we cannot ascertain on the record before us whether the district court based its sentence in part on James's need for rehabilitation (and a longer sentence in order to qualify him for intensive drug abuse treatment), and the district did not have the benefit of Tapia and Grant, we vacate and remand for resentencing.
VACATED AND REMANDED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.