Tapia applies to Supervised Release violations

In United States v. Deen, the Sixth Circuit determined that the Supreme Court's ruling in Tapia, that a sentence cannot be imposed or lengthened in order to provide treatment or complete a program, applies with equal force to supervised release revocation proceedings.

The Court  reviewed the statutory language and history behind supervised release revocations, and found that "We see no difference in the quality of a defendant’s confinement when he 'serve[s] in prison all or part of'' his revoked supervised release term and his initial 'imprisonment' after conviction.  The prohibitory language of § 3582(a) interpreted in Tapia naturally encompasses a court order that requires a defendant to serve time in prison for violating a condition of supervised release."

In so finding, the Court joins the First, Fourth, Eighth, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits, who have all found the same post Tapia.