Jeffrey Sauerbry appeals the 12-month prison sentence that the district court 1 imposed after revoking his supervised release. For reversal, Sauerbry argues the sentence was unreasonable because the court failed to consider the factors listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).

We conclude that the record reflects the district court considered the appropriate factors, and that the revocation sentence was not unreasonable. See United States v. Nelson, 453 F.3d 1004, 1006 (8th Cir. 2006) (district court must consider advisory sentencing range and policy statements found in Guidelines Chapter 7, and must also consider § 3553(a) factors); United States v. Larison, 432 F.3d 921, 923 (8th Cir. 2006) (district court need not mechanically list every § 3553(a) consideration when sentencing defendant upon revocation of supervised release); United States v. Tyson, 413 F.3d 824, 825 (8th Cir. 2005) (per curiam) (revocation sentences are reviewed for unreasonableness in accordance with United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005)); United States v. White Face, 383 F.3d 733, 740 (8th Cir. 2004) (all that is required in revocation sentencing is evidence that court has considered relevant matters and *756 that some reason be stated for its decision).

Accordingly, we affirm.