Janice Hankey appeals the district court’s 1 revocation of her probation and imposition of a 70-month term of imprisonment. On appeal, she argues that there was insufficient evidence to revoke her probation and that the district court erred in imposing a sentence in excess of the Guidelines imprisonment range recommended by the Chapter 7 policy statement. After careful review of the record, we affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in revoking Hankey’s probation, because the undisputed evidence at the revocation hearing showed that she had failed to comply with her probation conditions. See United States v. Leigh, 276 F.3d 1011, 1012 (8th Cir. 2002) (per curiam) (standard of review); United States v. Goeller, 807 F.2d 749, 751 (8th Cir. 1986). Further, the district court did not err in sentencing Hankey to 70 months imprisonment, because this sentence was within the range of sentences that initially could have been imposed. See U.S.S.G. Ch.7, Pt. A(2)(a); United States v. Iversen, 90 F.3d 1340, 1345 (8th Cir. 1996).

Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm.

A true copy.