The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
13-30190•United States of America v. Sarah Butler
13-30190Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitDec 18, 2013
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
SARAH BUTLER,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 13-30190
D.C. No. 2:12-cr-06011-EFS
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Washington
Edward F. Shea, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 17, 2013**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Sarah Butler appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 8-
month sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we vacate and remand.
FILED
DEC 18 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
-- 1 of 2 --
Butler contends that the district court procedurally erred by imposing an 8-
month sentence for the purpose of rehabilitation. Because Butler did not object on
this ground before the district court, we review for plain error. See United States v.
Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 & n.3 (9th Cir. 2010). The record
reflects that the district court may have considered Butler’s need for rehabilitative
services, including parenting classes, when it imposed her sentence. If so, it
constitutes plain error. See Tapia v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 2382, 2391 (2011)
(sentencing courts are precluded from “imposing or lengthening a prison term to
promote an offender’s rehabilitation”); United States v. Grant, 664 F.3d 276, 279-
82 (9th Cir. 2011) (imposing sentence for the purpose of rehabilitation on
revocation of supervised release constitutes plain error). Accordingly, we vacate
the sentence and remand for resentencing.
In light of our decision, we do not reach Butler’s remaining contentions.
The mandate shall issue forthwith.
VACATED and REMANDED.
13-30190 2
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.