Opinion ID: 623887
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Rehabilitative Purposes

Text: Lucas next claims that the district court lengthened his sentence to promote his rehabilitation. In Tapia v. United States, ___ U.S. ___, 131 S.Ct. 2382, 180 L.Ed.2d 357 (2011), the Supreme Court held that the Sentencing Reform Act precludes a district court from imposing or lengthening a prison term in order to promote a criminal defendant's rehabilitation. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(a) (instructing sentencing courts to recogniz[e] that imprisonment is not an appropriate means of promoting correction and rehabilitation). In so holding, the Court remanded for resentencing because the district court specifically selected the length of the sentence to ensure that the defendant would be eligible to participate in a 500-hour drug-treatment program. Tapia, 131 S.Ct. at 2392-93. But the Court also emphasized that it was not error for a district court to discuss the opportunities for rehabilitation within prison or the benefits of specific treatment or training programs. Id. at 2392. District courts are also permitted to urge the Bureau of Prisons to place an offender in a prison-treatment program. Id. The district court briefly mentioned rehabilitative programs while sentencing Lucas. After imposing a sentence of 210 months, the district court stated that [s]uch a sentence will serve to hold the defendant accountable, serve as a deterrent, protect the community, provide the opportunity for rehabilitative programs and achieve parity with sentences of similarly-situated offenders. (Sent. Tr. at 32.) The district court concluded by stating: [H]opefully, too, you can find interest in education and trainingall of which I know you plan to pursue while in prisonthat will direct you to something better upon your release. Id. at 35. Lucas now contends that in making these brief statements, the district court relied on the opportunity for rehabilitation in lengthening Lucas's sentence. Contrary to Lucas's contention, the district court did what Tapia plainly allows: discuss the opportunities for rehabilitative programs while Lucas is imprisoned. As the Supreme Court stated, [A] court properly may address a person who is about to begin a prison term about these important matters. Tapia, 131 S.Ct. at 2392. There is no indication that the district court chose the length of the sentence based upon the greater opportunities for rehabilitation a longer prison sentence allowed. Although imprisonment is not an appropriate means of promoting correction and rehabilitation, 18 U.S.C. § 3582(a), the mere mention that Lucas would have the opportunity to take part in rehabilitative programs is not prohibited under Tapia.