United States of America v. Thomas Kyle Cauther

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 24-4377
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
THOMAS KYLE CAUTHER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:24-cr-00023-BO-BM-1)
Submitted: August 21, 2025 Decided: August 25, 2025
Before WILKINSON, HARRIS, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ON BRIEF: G. Alan DuBois, Federal Public Defender, Andrew DeSimone, Assistant
Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Raleigh,
North Carolina, for Appellant. Daniel P. Bubar, Acting United States Attorney, David A.
Bragdon, Assistant United States Attorney, Katherine S. Englander, Assistant United
States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Thomas Kyle Cauther appeals the 240-month sentence imposed following his guilty
plea to Hobbs Act robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a), and carjacking, in violation
of 18 U.S.C. § 2119. On appeal, he argues that the district court impermissibly considered
his rehabilitative needs when determining the length of his sentence. We affirm.
A district court cannot impose or lengthen a term of imprisonment “to promote
correction and rehabilitation.” United States v. Lewis, 90 F.4th 288, 295 (4th Cir.) (citation
modified), cert. denied, 144 S. Ct. 2543 (2024); see Tapia v. United States, 564 U.S. 319,
332 (2011). But “Tapia does not prevent a district court from considering rehabilitation in
the course of a sentencing proceeding.” United States v. Lemon, 777 F.3d 170, 173 (4th
Cir. 2015) (citation modified). Our review of the record leads us to conclude that the
district court did not plainly err in fashioning Cauther’s sentence, as the court’s explanation
for the chosen sentence demonstrates that any reference to Cauther’s rehabilitative needs
was not “causally related to the length of the sentence.” Id. at 174 (citation modified)
(emphasis omitted); see id. at 172 (noting Tapia error not raised at sentencing is reviewed
for plain error).
We therefore affirm the criminal judgment. We dispense with oral argument
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

-- 2 of 2 --