## Facts

- John Eugene Walker committed two bank robberies in Utah in May 2013 and later pleaded guilty in federal court.
- Walker had a long history of drug and alcohol addiction and a lengthy prior criminal record, including substantial prior incarceration.
- After arrest and detention, Walker entered intensive treatment and, after release, maintained sobriety through structured programs.
- While on supervision, Walker complied with conditions, maintained employment, and consistently tested negative for drugs and alcohol.
- At resentencing on remand, the court heard extensive evidence, including testimony from multiple witnesses, about Walker’s rehabilitation and current risk of reoffending.

## Issues

1. How should the district court apply and explain the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors at resentencing after an appellate mandate finding the original sentence substantively unreasonable?
2. Whether a sentence substantially below the advisory Guidelines range could still reflect the seriousness of bank robbery, promote respect for law, provide just punishment, afford general deterrence, and protect the public.
3. How may post-offense rehabilitation be considered in determining a custodial sentence consistent with 18 U.S.C. § 3582(a) and Tapia v. United States?

## Decision

- The court resentenced Walker in accordance with the appellate remand and reweighed the full set of § 3553(a) factors.
- The court imposed a custodial sentence that included imprisonment (longer than the prior time-served disposition) followed by supervised release.
- The court set the sentence below the advisory Guidelines range and explained the downward variance primarily by Walker’s extraordinary rehabilitation and low current risk of recidivism.
- The court concluded that a meaningful prison term was necessary to account for offense seriousness and general deterrence, even while recognizing strong evidence of personal reform.

## Legal Principles

- A sentencing court must treat the Guidelines range as the starting point and must provide a reasoned, factor-by-factor explanation under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), including general deterrence, respect for law, just punishment, and public protection.
- Post-offense rehabilitation may support a downward variance under § 3553(a), but the court may not impose or lengthen imprisonment to promote rehabilitation.  
- On remand after a finding of substantive unreasonableness, a district court may still vary below the Guidelines if it reconsiders the full statutory framework, follows the mandate, and explains why the revised sentence satisfies § 3553(a) and avoids unwarranted disparities.

## Conclusion

On resentencing after remand, the district court imposed a below-Guidelines prison term plus supervised release, finding that a custodial component was required for seriousness and general deterrence, but that Walker’s extraordinary post-offense rehabilitation and reduced risk of recidivism justified a substantial downward variance under § 3553(a).


United States v. Walker, 252 F. Supp. 3d 1269 (D. Utah 2017)