Martin Dennis Arrasmith challenges the district court’s 1 revocation of his supervised release. Upon careful review of the record, we conclude the revocation and resulting sentence were correct, and we reject each of Arrasmith’s arguments. Specifically, we reject Arrasmith’s unsupported arguments that the district court did not have jurisdiction over each of his alleged violations, see 18 U.S.C. §§ 3231, 3237(a); and that the probation officer was required to immediately report his violations to the district court. Further, we conclude the district court’s finding that Arrasmith had violated his supervised release conditions was adequate and supported by the record, particularly by evidence that Arrasmith had used drugs and failed to comply with drug testing. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) and (g)(3); United States v. Stephens, 65 F.3d 738, 741 (8th Cir. 1995) (defendant knowingly and willfully failed to comply with drug-treatment condition of supervised release when he failed to attend counseling sessions and submit urine specimens). We reject as meritless Arrasmith’s argument regarding disclosure of a mental health report. We construe Arrasmith’s remaining arguments as ineffective-assistance claims which would be better addressed in a collateral proceeding. See United States v. Martin, 59 F.3d 767, 771 (8th Cir. 1995).

Accordingly, we affirm. We deny Ar-rasmith’s pending motion.

A true copy.