UNITED STATES v. RAMOS (2020)

MEMORANDUM **

Ulysses Ramos appeals from the district court's judgment and challenges the 24-month sentence imposed upon his fourth revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Ramos contends that the district court impermissibly considered rehabilitative purposes in determining the length of his sentence. See Tapia v. United States, 564 U.S. 319, 335, 131 S.Ct. 2382, 180 L.Ed.2d 357 (2011) (district courts are precluded from imposing or lengthening a sentence to promote rehabilitation); United States v. Grant, 664 F.3d 276, 280 (9th Cir. 2011) (applying Tapia to sentences imposed on revocation of supervised release). We review for plain error, see Grant, 664 F.3d at 279, and conclude there is none. Although the district court expressed concern about the danger Ramos poses to himself and discussed the availability of rehabilitation programs in prison, the record does not suggest that the court imposed or lengthened the sentence to promote rehabilitation. See Tapia, 564 U.S. at 334, 131 S.Ct. 2382 (a district court does not run afoul of 18 U.S.C. § 3582(a) by “discussing the opportunities for rehabilitation within prison”).

AFFIRMED.