United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 18-1762

___________________________

United States of America

 Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Jesse Mateo Rodrigues

 Defendant - Appellant

____________

Appeal from United States District Court

for the District of Minnesota - St. Paul

____________

Submitted: November 12, 2018

Filed: January 8, 2019

[Unpublished]

____________

Before COLLOTON, SHEPHERD, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.
Jesse Mateo Rodrigues challenges a 12-month prison sentence he received

for violating his supervised-release conditions. Because the district court1

 did not

abuse its discretion, we affirm. 

Since being placed on supervised release in 2015, Rodrigues has complied

with neither the law nor the conditions imposed upon him. Instead, he has at

various times tested positive for illegal drugs, attempted to bribe a drug-testing

provider, received repeated citations for driving with a revoked license, and been

arrested for driving while impaired. More recently, he failed to follow the orders

of his probation officer, used methamphetamine, and led a state trooper on a highspeed chase. These events led the district court to revoke Rodrigues’s supervised

release and return him to prison.

Rodrigues’s history of noncompliance played a major role in the district

court’s decision. The court noted, for example, that it had “seen [Rodrigues]

before,” that he was a “high risk offender[],” and that he was “someone [who could

not] follow instructions.” It also rejected Rodrigues’s request for placement in a

treatment program, despite his mental-health and substance-abuse problems,

because he had “sa[id] the same things at [his] last revocation hearing” and had

already been kicked out of a reentry program. 

The district court imposed a 12-month sentence, which was at the bottom of

Rodrigues’s advisory range under the Sentencing Guidelines. “We review a

sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release under a

deferential[ ]abuse-of-discretion standard.” United States v. DeMarrias, 895 F.3d

570, 572–73 (8th Cir. 2018) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). A

district court abuses its discretion if it commits a procedural error or imposes a

substantively unreasonable sentence. Id. at 573.

1

The Honorable Michael J. Davis, United States District Judge for the District

of Minnesota.

-2-
The district court did not commit a procedural error. It accurately calculated

Rodrigues’s Guidelines range and sufficiently considered the applicable sentencing

factors, including his medical needs. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(D); see also id.

§§ 3553(a), 3583(e)(3); United States v. Franklin, 397 F.3d 604, 607 (8th Cir.

2005) (“All that is required is evidence that the court has considered the relevant

matters . . . .” (citation omitted)). At the revocation hearing, the court discussed

Rodrigues’s substance-abuse and mental-health problems and stated that it was

“interested in trying to help [him] with those issues.” Even so, it decided not to

place him in a treatment program, primarily because it weighed other

considerations, such as his failure to remain law-abiding, more heavily than his

treatment needs. The court was permitted to exercise its discretion in this way. 

See United States v. Keating, 579 F.3d 891, 893–94 (8th Cir. 2009).

As for the length of the sentence, the district court’s explanation was

sufficient, even if it was not exhaustive. Among other things, the court reviewed

Rodrigues’s history, emphasized that he had not been able to remain law-abiding,

and stated that his “behavior call[ed] for sending [him] back to prison.” The court

had “wide latitude” to weigh Rodrigues’s past conduct heavily in crafting an

appropriate sentence. United States v. Townsend, 617 F.3d 991, 994 (8th Cir.

2010) (per curiam) (citation omitted). 

Finally, Rodrigues suggests that his sentence is substantively unreasonable,

but he cannot point to anything in particular to rebut the presumption of

reasonableness afforded to a within-Guidelines-range sentence like this one. See

United States v. Petreikis, 551 F.3d 822, 824–25 (8th Cir. 2009). And were there

any doubt, Rodrigues’s “troubled history while on supervised release” supports the

district court’s decision. United States v. Ford, 854 F.3d 1030, 1032 (8th Cir.

2017). 

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

______________________________

-3-