USA v. April Potts, No. 12-10290 (5th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 12-10290 Document: 00512109823 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/11/2013 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED No. 12-10290 Summary Calendar January 11, 2013 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. APRIL LEANN POTTS, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:09-CR-118-1 Before KING, CLEMENT, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* April Leann Potts appeals the 24-month sentence imposed after revocation of her supervised release. She argues that her revocation sentence is plainly unreasonable because the district court relied on her rehabilitative needs when imposing or lengthening her sentence. She argues that the district court imposed the 24-month sentence so she could participate in the Bureau of Prison s drug rehabilitation program. * Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. Case: 12-10290 Document: 00512109823 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/11/2013 No. 12-10290 In Tapia v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 2382, 2393 (2011), the Supreme Court held in a direct criminal appeal that a district court may not impose or lengthen a prison sentence to enable an offender to complete a treatment program or otherwise to promote rehabilitation. Even assuming that Tapia applies in the revocation context, see United States v. Receskey, 699 F.3d 807, 810 (5th Cir. 2012), Potts has not demonstrated that her sentence is plainly unreasonable. The district court clearly did not impose the revocation sentence to address Potts s rehabilitative needs as revocation in her case was mandated by 18 U.S.C. ยง 3583(g). Moreover, as in Receskey, the court s concern over rehabilitation was not the dominant factor in the sentencing court s analysis, and the court discussed the opportunity for rehabilitation with Potts and recommended that she participate in a drug rehabilitation program after it imposed the sentence. See Receskey, 699 F.3d at 812. The district court did not violate Tapia because the sentence was not tailored to allow her to participate in a specific drug rehabilitation program. Id. The district court s judgment is AFFIRMED. 2
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.
