Per Curiam

After revoking supervised release for not complying with its terms and conditions, the court’s May 2011 judgment sentenced Lifshitz to 24 months in prison and 12 months’ supervision. Noting his need for medical care, the court made clear to Lifshitz that its decision was based on the need to "promote respect for the law and to protect the public from [future] crimes by [Lifshitz]." Lifshitz argued that under the Supreme Court’s May 2012 ruling in Tapia v. United States, district court erred by basing the length of his sentence on his rehabilitative needs. Agreeing with other circuits that Tapia applies upon revocation of supervised release, Second Circuit agreed that when sentencing a defendant after revoking supervision, a district court may not sentence based on the defendant’s need for rehabilitation. However, the circuit affirmed district court because the record showed it did not sentence Lifshitz to further his rehabilitation. District court made clear that it based sentencing on Lifshitz’s "continued disregard for the reasonable terms and conditions of supervised release," which necessitated "a lengthy period of incarceration" to promote respect for the law and to protect the public from any future crimes committed by Lifshitz.