Federal prisoner Vincent Packineau directly appeals his sentence of 11 months upon the revocation of his supervised release. At the revocation and sentencing hearing, the district court indicated that the length of Packineau’s prison term was chosen to optimize his mental health treatment while in custody. Packineau appeals the district court’s decision to extend his sentence to promote rehabilitation.

We review for plain error because Pack-ineau failed to object to the district court’s reference to rehabilitation. United States v. Taylor, 679 F.3d 1005, 1007 (8th Cir. 2012). On appeal, the parties agree that the district court committed plain error under Tapia v. United States, 564 U.S. 319, 330-35, 131 S.Ct. 2382, 180 L.Ed.2d 357 (2011) (federal court may not impose or lengthen prison term to promote offender’s rehabilitation). The government correctly notes that the district court “cannot be faulted for this error,” because both parties referred to Packineau’s mental health *190 in their recommendations to the court and Packineau personally requested that the court place him in a mental health facility. Nonetheless, after careful review we conclude that Tapia requires resentencing in this case. See Taylor, 679 F.3d at 1006-07 (Tapia applies upon revocation of supervised release). Accordingly, we vacate Packineau’s revocation sentence and remand the case for resentencing.