United States v. Vincent Packineau, No. 16-1045 (8th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Wollman, Arnold and Murphy, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. Remanded for resentencing under Tapia v. United States, 564 U.S. 319 (2011) (federal court may not impose or lengthen a sentence to promote an offender's rehabilitation) as the district court stated that the length of the sentence imposed upon the revocation of defendant's supervised release was chosen to optimize his mental health treatment while in custody. [ August 10, 2016
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 16-1045 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Vincent Packineau lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of North Dakota - Bismarck ____________ Submitted: August 2, 2106 Filed: August 11, 2016 [Unpublished] ____________ Before WOLLMAN, ARNOLD, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Federal prisoner Vincent Packineau directly appeals his sentence of 11 months upon the revocation of his supervised release. At the revocation and sentencing hearing, the district court indicated that the length of Packineau’s prison term was chosen to optimize his mental health treatment while in custody. Packineau appeals the district court's decision to extend his sentence to promote rehabilitation. We review for plain error because Packineau failed to object to the district court's reference to rehabilitation. United States v. Taylor, 679 F.3d 1005, 1007 (8th Cir. 2012). On appeal, the parties agree that the district court committed plain error under Tapia v. United States, 564 U.S. 319, 330–35 (2011) (federal court may not impose or lengthen prison term to promote offender’s rehabilitation). The government correctly notes that the district court "cannot be faulted for this error," because both parties referred to Packineau's mental health in their recommendations to the court and Packineau personally requested that the court place him in a mental health facility. Nonetheless, after careful review we conclude that Tapia requires resentencing in this case. See Taylor, 679 F.3d at 1006–07 (Tapia applies upon revocation of supervised release). Accordingly, we vacate Packineau’s revocation sentence and remand the case for resentencing. ______________________________ -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.
