NALBANDIAN, Circuit Judge. Officers arrested T’Shaun Jones, who had been on supervised release, after he fired shots outside his house and fled inside. Under a plea agreement, the district court imposed the agreed-upon ten-year sentence, which was above the Guidelines range. Separately, Jones faced resentencing on his supervised release because the firearm offense violated his supervised-release conditions. A different district court imposed a 24-month sentence for this violation—half to run concurrently with his firearm conviction and half to run consecutively.

Jones challenges both the ten-year firearm sentence and the 24-month supervised-release sentence. Because the district courts properly calculated Jones’s Guidelines range for the firearm offense and imposed a reasonable sentence for the supervised-release violation, we AFFIRM.

SILER, Circuit Judge. This matter comes before us on remand from the Supreme Court of the United States. All four Defendants were found guilty of maintaining a drug-involved premises. Sylvia Hofstetter was also found guilty of conspiring to distribute controlled substances, distributing controlled substances, and money laundering.

After we affirmed the convictions, the Supreme Court decided Ruan v. United States, 142 S. Ct. 2370, 2375 (2022), clarifying the applicable mens rea for an unlawful distribution charge, and remanded the case. Defendants now argue that the district court erred regarding the jury instructions for the maintaining-a-drug-involved-premises charge, and Hofstetter further argues the district court erred as to the instructions for her distribution-of-a-controlled-substance and conspiracy-to-distribute-and-dispense-controlled-substances charges.

Defendants’ arguments are unavailing. The district court’s instructions were not plainly erroneous regarding the maintaining-a-drug-involved-premises and conspiracy-to-distribute-and-dispense-controlled-substances charges. Moreover, Hofstetter’s argument regarding the instruction for the distribution-of-a-controlled-substance charge is foreclosed by United States v. Anderson, 67 F.4th 755 (6th Cir. 2023) (per curiam). We affirm.