United States v. David Brooks ( 2011 )

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 11a0490n.06
FILED
No. 10-6556
Jul 15, 2011
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS LEONARD GREEN, Clerk
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )
)
Plaintiff-Appellee, )
)
v. ) ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED
) STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
DAVID BROOKS, ) THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF
) KENTUCKY
Defendant-Appellant, )
)
)
Before: SILER, COLE, and KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judges.
KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judge. David Brooks pled guilty to counterfeiting money in violation
of 18 U.S.C. §§ 471 and 472, and to possessing counterfeited money in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 472.
The district court sentenced him to fifteen months’ imprisonment, which was at the bottom of his
Guidelines range. The court cited three reasons for Brooks’s sentence: first, Brooks was “the most
culpable” defendant; second, he committed the crime while on state probation; and third, he needed
“structure” and “rehabilitation,” indicating that he would receive both while in prison. [R.80, at 38,
35.] Brooks now appeals his sentence as substantively unreasonable.
We presume that Brooks’s within-Guidelines sentence is reasonable. See United States v.
Vonner, 516 F.3d 382, 389 (6th Cir. 2008) (en banc). Brooks attempts to overcome this presumption
by arguing, among other reasons, that the district court failed to “recogniz[e] that imprisonment is
not an appropriate means of promoting correction and rehabilitation.” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(a). The
No. 10-6556
United States v. Brooks
Supreme Court recently held that this section categorically “precludes sentencing courts from
imposing or lengthening a prison term to promote an offender’s rehabilitation.” Tapia v. United
States, — U.S. —, 2011 WL 2369395, at *8 (2011). Here, as there, “the sentencing transcript
suggests the possibility that [Brooks]’s sentence was based on [his] rehabilitative needs.” Id. at *9.
Specifically, the district court told Brooks that he “need[ed] more structure” and “rehabilitation very
much[.]” [R.80, at 35, 38.] Although there is nothing improper about these observations by the
district court, the record here suggests that the district court may have considered Brooks’s
rehabilitative needs as a sentencing factor. We therefore vacate his sentence and remand for
resentencing.
-2-