# 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____________ Submitted: November 12, 2018 Filed: January 8, 2019 [Unpublished]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 court 1 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 fo r 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 methampheta mine, and led a stat e trooper on a highspeed chase. These events led the distri ct court to revoke R odrigues’s supervised release and return him to prison.
Rodrigues’s history of noncompliance pl ayed a major role in the district court’s decision. The court noted, for example, that it had “seen [Rodrigues] before,” that he wa s a “high risk offende r[],” and that he was “someone [who could not] follow instructions.” It also reject ed 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 Se ntencing 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 proce dural error. It accurately calculated Rodrigues’s Guidelines range and sufficien tly 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 th at the court has considered the relevant matters . . . .” (citation omitted)). At th e revocation hearing, the court discussed Rodrigues’s substance-abuse and mental-h ealth 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, pr imarily because it weighed other considerations, such as his failure to re main 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, th e district court’s explanation was sufficient, even if it was not exhaustive. Among other things, the court reviewed Rodrigues’s history, emphasized that he ha d 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-G uidelines-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-