# United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 19-1765

___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v. Jose Ruiz, Jr., also known as Joey, also known as Paul Wall

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Davenport

____________ Submitted: January 13, 2020 Filed: February 10, 2020 [Unpublished]

____________ Before BENTON, GRASZ, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.

____________ PER CURIAM. Jose Ruiz, Jr. pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute cocaine in violatio n of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(b)(1)(B), 846, and 851. The district court 1 sentenced him to 120

1 The Honorable John A. Jarvey, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa.months’ imprisonment and eight years of supervised release. Less than a year after

release, he violated the conditions of supervised release. The court revoked his supervision and sentenced him to 37 months’ imprisonment and 6 0 months of supervised release. Ruiz appealed, and this court affirmed. Upon release, he again violated the conditions of supervised release. The court revoked his supervis ion and sentenced him to 8 months’ imprisonment and 36 months of supervised rel ease. He appeals. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms. Ruiz contends the district court erred in revoking his supervised release. “A district court may revoke supervised release if the government proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant violated a condition of supervis ed release.” United States v. Petersen , 848 F.3d 1153, 1156 (8th Cir. 2017) (internal quotation marks omitted). This court reviews the decision to revoke s upervised release for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Frosch , 758 F.3d 1012, 1014 (8th Cir. 2014). Ruiz admitted violating two conditions of release: failure to comply with substance abuse treatment and failure to report to the probation office. He argu es the district court abused its discretion in revoking his supervision based o n these “technical” Grade C violations. The district court may revoke supervised release based on Grade C violations. See U.S.S.G. § 7B1.3(a)(2) (“Upon a finding of a Grade C violation, the court may (A) revoke probation or supervised release; or (B) extend the term of probation or supervised release and/or modify the conditions of supervision.”); United States v. Melton , 666 F.3d 513, 516 (8th Cir. 2012) (rejecting argument that Grade C violations were “merely technical”). Revoking Ruiz’s supervised release and imposing a within-guidelines sentence, the district court said:

-2-In fashioning an appropriate sentence, I have considered each of the

factors found in Title 18, United States Code, Section 3553(a), factors in 3583(e), Chapter 7 of the Sentencing Guidelines has policy statements. I have considered the history and the persistent problems, largely based on attitude. I have considered how long he has been on and the fact that we are not having much success. I will terminate the supervised release, but I don’t want to reward him for the behaviors thus far. I am very concerned when he comes back we are just going to have to revoke him again. I hope that is not true. These are grade C violations. He’s a Criminal History Category IV at the time of his last sentencing. I conclude that the following sentence is sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to address the essential sentencing considerations. The district court did not abuse its discretion in revoking his supervision.
* * * * * * * The judgment is affirmed.

______________________________

-3-