United States v. Lifshitz, No. 11-2078 (2d Cir. 2013)
Annotate this CaseDefendant appealed from the district court's judgment revoking his supervised release and sentence. Defendant argued that the district court committed error in his sentencing by impermissibly basing the length of his sentence on his rehabilitative needs. The court agreed that when sentencing a defendant after revoking a term of supervised release, a district court may not sentence based on the defendant's need for rehabilitation pursuant to Tapia v. United States. The court concluded that the record made clear that the district court did not sentence defendant to further his rehabilitation where the sentencing colloquy demonstrated that the district court's primary considerations in sentencing defendant were promoting respect for the law and protecting the public from further crimes from defendant. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.
Sign up for free summaries delivered directly to your inbox. Learn More › You already receive new opinion summaries from Second Circuit US Court of Appeals. Did you know we offer summary newsletters for even more practice areas and jurisdictions? Explore them here.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.