April Leann Potts appeals the 24-month sentence imposed after revocation of her supervised release. She argues that her revocation sentence is plainly unreasonable because the district court relied on her rehabilitative needs when imposing or lengthening her sentence. She argues *373 that the district court imposed the 24-month sentence so she could participate in the Bureau of Prison’s drug rehabilitation program.

In Tapia v. United States, — U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 2382, 2393, 180 L.Ed.2d 357 (2011), the Supreme Court held in a direct criminal appeal that a district court “may not impose or lengthen a- prison sentence to enable an offender to complete a treatment program or otherwise to promote rehabilitation.” Even assuming that Ta-pia applies in the revocation context, see United States v. Receskey, 699 F.3d 807, 810 (5th Cir. 2012), Potts has not demonstrated that her sentence is plainly unreasonable.

The district court clearly did not impose the revocation sentence to address Potts’s rehabilitative needs as revocation in her case was mandated by 18 U.S.C. § 3583(g). Moreover, as in Receskey, the court’s concern over rehabilitation was not the “dominant factor” in the sentencing court’s analysis, and the court discussed the opportunity for rehabilitation with Potts and recommended that she participate in a drug rehabilitation program after it imposed the sentence. See Receskey, 699 F.3d at 812. The district court did not violate Tapia because the sentence was not tailored to allow her to participate in a specific drug rehabilitation program. Id: The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.