United States v. Walter Henry Vandergrift, Jr.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that the district court erred in considering rehabilitation when it sentenced the defendant to 24 months' imprisonment upon the revocation of supervised release
• concluding that Tapia “applies in the context of resentencing upon the revocation of supervised release”
• recognizing that Tapia abrogates Brown’s holding that “a court may consider a defendant’s rehabilitative needs when imposing a specific incarcerative term following revocation of supervised release”
• concluding that defendant’s substantial rights were not impacted where the district court’s “primary considerations were for the safety of the public and deterring others from similar conduct”
• holding that a de- fendant did not demonstrate a plain error at sentencing affected his substantial rights when he would have received the same sentence without the error
• concluding that defendant failed to show that his sentence would have been different without consideration of rehabilitation because that factor was a minor consideration, not the driving force behind the defendant’s sentence

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).