The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals has affirmed a 36-month prison sentence imposed on Timothy L. Richards following repeated violations of his supervised release, rejecting his argument that the district court improperly focused on rehabilitation when determining the length of his confinement.
Richards, who was originally sentenced in 2012 for drug and firearm offenses, began his six-year term of supervised release in 2022. However, his compliance quickly unraveled. He failed to maintain lawful employment, neglected to notify his probation officer when he was suspended from his homeless shelter residence, misrepresented where he lived, quit his job without finding a new one, and repeatedly failed drug tests. These numerous failures led his probation officer to petition for revocation in late 2024.
The Revocation Hearing and Sentence Discrepancy
At a hearing in February 2025, Richards admitted to the violations. The sentencing guidelines recommended a term of imprisonment between 18 and 24 months. The government asked for 30 months, while Richards sought the minimum of 18 months, arguing his violations weren’t that serious and requesting no further supervision afterward.
The district court, however, was troubled by the extent of Richards’s defiance. The judge noted that Richards had only served two years of his original six-year supervised release term and still had four years remaining that he had completely disregarded. Richards himself confirmed his desire to live independently, even if it meant being homeless and jobless, stating he would prefer prison to continued probation supervision.
Ultimately, the district court revoked the supervised release and imposed a sentence of 36 months—12 months above the high end of the advisory guidelines range. The court cited the seriousness of the violations, Richards’s history, and critically, his stated intention not to comply with any further supervision. The judge explicitly stated the sentence was intended “to hold the defendant accountable for the violations” and that the sentence provided “needed correctional treatment in the most effective matter,” while also satisfying 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. The court also ordered that upon release from this new prison term, Richards would be discharged from any further supervised release.
The Appeal: Alleged “Tapia Error”
Richards appealed, claiming the district court committed a “Tapia error.” This error, established in *Tapia v. United States* (2011), occurs when a district court focuses “exclusively or disproportionately on rehabilitation in deciding… how long a [prison] term should be,” as federal law generally prohibits using imprisonment solely as a means to promote correction and rehabilitation.
Richards pointed to the district court’s statement that the 36-month sentence provided “needed correctional treatment” as proof that rehabilitation drove the decision to go above the guidelines.
The Seventh Circuit’s Analysis
Writing for the Seventh Circuit panel, Judge St. Eve acknowledged the ongoing debate within the circuit regarding the correct standard of review for these types of sentencing appeals but stated the outcome was the same regardless of the standard applied.
The court clarified that a *Tapia* error requires more than simply mentioning rehabilitation or imposing a sentence above the guidelines. To prove the error, Richards would need to show that the district court chose a longer sentence specifically because a longer term offered greater opportunities for rehabilitation—meaning the court would have imposed a shorter sentence otherwise. The appellate court noted that Richards offered no comparison for what the sentence would have been without the rehabilitation consideration.
The panel found that the district court considered several factors beyond rehabilitation when imposing the 36-month sentence:
1. Accountability for Unserved Supervision: The court was clearly concerned that Richards had essentially avoided four years of his original supervised release obligation. The 36-month sentence, followed by a complete discharge from supervision, appeared to be a compromise where Richards got his wish (no future supervision) in exchange for serving a longer prison term.
2. Multiple Violations: Even if individual violations weren’t deemed severe, the sheer number of them warranted a substantial response.
3. Statutory Requirements: The court was required by 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) to consider rehabilitation, which it did by recommending the Residential Drug Abuse Program (RDAP). Merely mentioning a § 3553(a) factor does not automatically constitute disproportionate focus.
The appellate court concluded that the record suggested the longer sentence was imposed primarily to hold Richards accountable for failing to complete his original sentence, rather than being driven primarily by rehabilitative goals. Therefore, the court found no reversible error in the sentencing decision.