United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 19-1765

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

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

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - 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[Unpublished]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 violation of 21

U.S.C. §§ 841(b)(1)(B), 846, and 851. The district court1 sentenced him to 120

1The 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 60 months of

supervised release. Ruiz appealed, and this court affirmed. Upon release, he again

violated the conditions of supervised release. The court revoked his supervision and

sentenced him to 8 months’ imprisonment and 36 months of supervised release. 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 supervised

release.” United States v. Petersen, 848 F.3d 1153, 1156 (8th Cir. 2017) (internal

quotation marks omitted). This court reviews the decision to revoke supervised

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 argues the

district court abused its discretion in revoking his supervision based on 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-