
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Herman TURLICH, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 11-30002
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Sept. 1, 2011.
    Elizabeth A. Privitera, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Diane Hollenshead Copes, Esq., Assistant U.S. Attorney, Stephen Andrew Higginson, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, New Orleans, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Gary V. Schwabe, Jr., Esq., Assistant Federal Public Defender, Robin Elise Schulberg, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, New Orleans, LA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before BENAVIDES, STEWART, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Herman Turlich, Jr., appeals from the judgment of the district court revoking his supervised release and sentencing him to 24 months of imprisonment. He argues that the district court erred by revoking his supervised release instead of ordering him into a drug treatment program.

The district court permissibly found that Turlich possessed and used controlled substances. See United States v. Smith, 978 F.2d 181, 182 (5th Cir.1992). Unless the district court found that he was eligible to be ordered into drug treatment under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d), revocation of supervised release was mandatory. § 3583(g)(1). Tur-lich committed numerous violations of the terms of his supervised release, twice testing positive for drug use, twice failing to report to his probation officer, and incurring a state court conviction of simple criminal damage to property. He did not merely fail a drug test. The district court did not err by finding that no exception was warranted pursuant to § 3583(d). Because the district court did not apply the exception, the mandatory revocation of supervised release was not an abuse of discretion. United States v. Grandlund, 71 F.3d 507, 509 (5th Cir.1995).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir R. 47.5.4.
     