from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan at Detroit. No. 2:09-cr-20224-5-Gerald
E. Rosen, District Judge.
Colleen P. Fitzharris, Brandy Y. Robinson, FEDERAL DEFENDER
OFFICE, Detroit, Michigan, for Appellant.
F. Pratt, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, Detroit,
Michigan, for Appellee.
Before: MOORE, WHITE, and DONALD, Circuit Judges.
NELSON MOORE, CIRCUIT JUDGE.
Adams is a seventy-one-year-old opiate addict with an
extensive criminal history; most of his convictions stem from
his substance-abuse problems. While on supervised release,
Adams tested positive for opiates on numerous occasions and
subsequently pleaded guilty to violating a condition of his
supervised release. The district court then revoked his
supervised release and imposed a below-Guidelines sentence of
eighteen months' imprisonment. On appeal, Adams argues
that the district court abused its discretion by imposing a
procedurally and substantively unreasonable sentence.
that the district court's sentencing decision was
procedurally unreasonable because the court violated
Adams's due-process right when it based his sentence upon
unreliable information about rehabilitation. We further hold
that the sentence was substantively unreasonable because the
district court violated Tapia v. United States, 564
U.S. 319 (2011), when it considered rehabilitation as a
factor when calculating the length of the period of
incarceration. We therefore VACATE the
defendant's sentence and REMAND for
is seventy-one and has been addicted to opiates for the last
thirty-five to forty years. R. 411 (Supervised-Release
Violation Hr'g ("Hr'g") at 20) (Page ID
#2818). He has an extensive criminal history-approximately
twenty convictions and numerous other contacts with the
criminal justice system-and these crimes were all closely
linked with Adams's addiction. Id. at 20, 22
(Page ID #2818, 2820).
2011, Adams pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to
distribute and possess with intent to distribute controlled
substances in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 and
841(a)(1). R. 275 (Judgment at 1) (Page ID #2247). He was
sentenced to sixty months' imprisonment and a term of
three years of supervised release. Id. at 2-3 (Page
ID #2248-49). After serving his custodial sentence, Adams
began his term of supervised release in July 2015. R. 395
(Supervision Report at 2) (Page ID #2771); R. 411 (Hr'g
at 12) (Page ID #2810). Starting in October 2015, Adams
repeatedly tested positive for opiates. R. 411 (Hr'g at
12-13) (Page ID #2810-11). In response, the U.S. Probation
Office placed Adams in multiple drug-treatment programs.
Id. at 13-14 (Page ID #2811-12). These programs did
not succeed, and he continued to abuse unlawful substances.
Id. at 14 (Page ID #2812).
Adams tested positive for opiates three times between October
24, 2016 and November 15, 2016, the Probation Office filed
another violation report with the district court. R. 404
(Violation Report at 2) (Page ID #2788). Following
Adams's failure of yet another drug test on November 30,
2016, the Probation Office filed an amended violation report.
R. 407 (Violation Report at 2) (Page ID #2793).
hearing in December 2016, Adams admitted guilt to the
violation of a condition of his supervised release-namely
that he had unlawfully used controlled substances. R. 411
(Hr'g at 4) (Page ID #2802); R. 408 (Judgment at 1) (Page
ID #2795). The Guidelines range for the violation was for a
term of incarceration between twenty-one and twenty-seven
months. R. 411 (Hr'g at 4) (Page ID #2802). After
extensive discussion of Adams's substance-abuse problems
and the failure of numerous treatment programs to end his
addiction, the district court revoked Adams's supervised
release and sentenced him to a period of incarceration of
eighteen months with no period of supervision to follow.
Id. at 22-23 (Page ID #2820-21); R. 408 (Judgment at
2) (Page ID #2796). Adams then timely filed this appeal. R.
409 (Notice of Appeal) (Page ID #2797).
Standard of Review
review sentences imposed for violations of supervised release
"'under a deferential abuse of discretion
standard' for reasonableness." United States v.
Bolds, 511 F.3d 568, 575 (6th Cir. 2007) (quoting
United States v. Lalonde, 509 F.3d 750, 769 (6th
Cir. 2007)). Reasonableness is comprised of both procedural
and substantive reasonableness; we review both for abuse of
discretion. United States v. Carson, 560 F.3d
566, 585 (6th Cir. 2009).
first review the procedural reasonableness of the district
court's sentencing decision. Bolds, 511 F.3d at
581. In order for a sentence to be procedurally reasonable,
the district court must have:
(1) properly calculated the applicable advisory Guidelines
range; (2) considered the other [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a)
factors as well as the parties' arguments for a sentence
outside the Guidelines range; and (3) adequately articulated
its reasoning for imposing the particular sentence chosen,
including any rejection of the parties' arguments for an
outside-Guidelines sentence and any decision to deviate from
the advisory Guidelines range.
Id. Furthermore, a district court "necessarily
abuses its sentencing discretion if it 'commit[s] [a]
significant procedural error, such as . . . selecting a
sentence based on clearly erroneous facts . . . .'"
Id. at 579 (first and second alteration in the