Vandergrift, 754 F.3d at 1310. Instead, this Court applied Tapia to hold that a district court errs whenever it “considers rehabilitation when imposing or lengthening a sentence of imprisonment.” Id. Here, in the course of discussing the factors it weighed in arriving at Mr. Al-berts’s prison sentence, the District Court told him that he “need[ed] a period of time where [he] can receive the treatment that [he] should have.” Thus, the District Court erred by considering Mr. Alberts’s need for rehabilitation as a factor in determining his prison sentence. Further, because our binding precedent clearly precludes consideration of rehabilitation when crafting a prison sentence, see id., that error was plain. See United States v. Aguillard, 217 F.3d 1319, 1321 (11th Cir. 2000) (per curiam) (<HOLDING>). However, the District Court’s error did not
holding that an error is plain only if it is clear under current law when there is no binding precedent on point an instruction typically will not be plain error holding that an error can be plain even in the absence of binding case law where it violates an absolutely clear legal norm holding that an error cannot be plain unless it is clear under current law quotation omitted holding that a trial court does not commit plain error unless the error is clear under current law holding that an error is plain if it is clear or obvious