Full Opinion

USCA11 Case: 26-13111 Document: 24-1 Date Filed: 11/12/2026 Page: 1 of 2 NOT FOR PUBLICATION In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 26-13111 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus LAVI RUBINSTEIN, Defendant-Appellant. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 1:09-cr-20611-CMA-1 ____________________ Before LUCK, ABUDU, and WILSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Defendant-Appellant Lavi Rubinstein appeals the revoca- tion of his supervised release. The district court determined that Rubinstein violated his supervised release in two ways: Violation 1 USCA11 Case: 26-13111 Document: 24-1 Date Filed: 11/12/2026 Page: 2 of 2 2 Opinion of the Court 26-13111 and Violation 2. For Violation 1, Rubinstein accepted employment at a strip club. For Violation 2, Rubinstein failed to notify his pro- bation officer of his change in employment at least ten days prior to the change. The court determined that Violation 1 broke a con- dition of supervised release that Rubinstein could not correspond with a company that produces “visual depictions” of sexually ex- plicit conduct. Rubinstein admitted that Violation 2 broke a stand- ard supervised release condition. Rubinstein argues that the district court erred in its determi- nation of Violation 1. But Rubinstein never challenges his admis- sion of guilt to Violation 2. Because Rubinstein admitted to Viola- tion 2, it was not an abuse of discretion for the district court to re- voke his supervised release. See United States v. Vandergrift, 754 F.3d 1303, 1307 (11th Cir. 2014) (explaining that a district court can re- voke supervised release when a defendant admits guilt to viola- tions). Rubinstein has not argued that his sentence would be shorter without consideration of Violation 1. He has thus waived this argument. See United States v. Carter, 776 F.3d 1309, 1327 (11th Cir. 2015). The district court’s sentence of imprisonment, nine months, is within the sentencing guidelines range for the violation of a condition of supervised release. See U.S.S.G. § 7C1.1(a)(3); U.S.S.G. § 7C1.5. AFFIRMED.