Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. William C. BRELAND, Jr., Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-03-05
Citations: 463 F. App'x 376
Docket Number: No. 10-60610
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. William C. BRELAND, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before DAVIS, PRADO, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 463
Pages: 376–377

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. William C. BRELAND, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
No. 10-60610.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
March 5, 2012.
Gaines H. Cleveland, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Annette Williams, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Gulfport, MS, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Ellen Maier Allred, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Gulfport, MS, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before DAVIS, PRADO, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
PER CURIAM:
This court affirmed the district court's consideration of Defendant William Bre-land's rehabilitative needs when imposing a term of imprisonment upon revocation of Breland's supervised release. United States v. Breland, 647 F.3d 284, 291 (5th Cir.2011). The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the judgment of this court, instructing that we reconsider the case in light of the Government's position as asserted in its brief to the Court. Breland v. United States, — U.S. -, 132 S.Ct. 1096, 181 L.Ed.2d 973 (2012).
In its brief, the Government stated that "the United States now agrees with [Bre-land] that Section 3582(a), as construed in Tapia, precludes a court from lengthening the time a defendant must serve in prison based on the defendant's rehabilitative needs when supervised release is revoked." The Government's position accords with how the First Circuit, United States v. Molignaro, 649 F.3d 1, 5 (1st Cir.2011), and the Ninth Circuit, United States v. Grant, 664 F.3d 276, 282 (9th Cir.2011), have resolved this issue.
Accordingly, this matter is REMANDED to the district court for resentencing in accordance with this order.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.