UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-4338
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
MICHAEL DENNIS OLDS,
Defendant - Appellant.
On Remand from the Supreme Court of the United States.
(S. Ct. No. 10-10612)
Submitted: January 26, 2012 Decided: February 9, 2012
Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellant. George E. B. Holding, United States Attorney,
Jennifer P. May-Parker, Kristine L. Fritz, Assistant United
States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
After finding that Michael Dennis Olds had violated
the terms of his supervised release, the district court revoked
release and sentenced him to thirty months in prison-—
significantly above Olds’ recommended Guidelines range of five-
eleven months. In imposing sentence, the district court stated
that the variant sentence was warranted by Olds’ need for
intensive drug therapy and the need to protect society from his
ongoing drug use.
Olds appealed, arguing that his sentence was plainly
unreasonable. We affirmed. However, the Supreme Court
subsequently vacated the judgment and remanded for
reconsideration in light of Tapia v. United States, 131 S. Ct.
2382 (2011). United States v. Olds, 420 Fed. App’x 260 (4th
Cir.), vacated, 132 S. Ct. 452 (2011). In Tapia, the Supreme
Court held that sentencing courts are precluded “from imposing
or lengthening a prison term to promote an offender’s
rehabilitation.” Tapia, 131 S. Ct. at 2391.
The district court did not have the benefit of Tapia
when it determined Olds’ sentence. To give the district court
an opportunity to reconsider the sentence in light of Tapia, we
conclude that resentencing is necessary. Accordingly, the
sentence is vacated and the case remanded for resentencing. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
2
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not adequately aid the decisional
process.
VACATED AND REMANDED
3