Raheam McLean appealed after the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri revoked his supervised release and sentenced him to a nine-month term in prison, which fell within the applicable Sentencing Guidelines range. During the appeal, McLean's counsel challenged the adequacy of the district court's explanation for the sentence and argued that the sentence violated the Supreme Court's decision in Tapia v. United States, which prohibits courts from imposing or lengthening prison terms solely to enable an offender to complete a treatment program. However, McLean had not raised these specific objections at the time of sentencing, meaning the appellate court could only review them for plain error.
The Eighth Circuit reviewed the case for plain error because the issues were not preserved below. Under this standard, the appellant must show that an error is clear or obvious and that it affected their substantial rights. Regarding the sentence explanation, the court found no clear error. The district judge had reviewed a memorandum detailing policy considerations, examined the violations, and heard arguments before pronouncing a sentence the court described as 'not novel.' The court held that McLean faced a daunting task in convincing the appellate court that more detail would have resulted in a lighter sentence. On the Tapia claim, the court similarly found no obvious error. The record did not show that the district court intended to lengthen the sentence for rehabilitation purposes, and McLean could not demonstrate a likelihood of receiving a lower sentence absent the alleged error. Additionally, the court addressed a clerical discrepancy where the written judgment stated McLean violated 'Mandatory Condition No. 1,' which conflicted with the oral pronouncement. Citing 28 U.S.C. § 2106, the court modified the written judgment to omit the finding of guilt regarding that specific condition, noting that where the oral sentence conflicts with the written judgment, the oral sentence controls and a remand is unnecessary when the appellate panel can correct the error itself.
The sentence of nine months in prison stands as modified. The written judgment is now corrected to reflect the actual conditions violated as pronounced in court, removing the reference to Mandatory Condition No. 1. The case is closed without remand, and McLean's counsel is granted leave to withdraw from the appeal.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download