David Lee Patrick (Patrick) appeals the sentence the district court 1 imposed after revoking his supervised release. After reviewing the record and counsel’s brief, we conclude Patrick’s challenge to the district court’s failure to credit him for time previously served in his other revocation cases is without merit because the district court lacked authority to give him such credit. See United States v. Wilson, 503 U.S. 329, 333-35, 112 S.Ct. 1351, 117 L.Ed.2d 593 (1992) (declaring the Attorney General, not the district court, has the responsibility for computing credit for time served under 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b)); United States v. Tindall, 455 F.3d 885, 887-88 (8th Cir. 2006) (same), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 127 S.Ct. 1028, 166 L.Ed.2d 774 (2007).

We further conclude Patrick’s sentence is not unreasonable because it was within the properly calculated advisory Guidelines range and the sentence resulted from the court’s consideration of appropriate factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). See United States v. Nelson, 453 F.3d 1004, 1006 (8th Cir. 2006) (concluding an appellate court reviews a revocation sentence to determine whether it is unreasonable in relation to, inter alia, the advisory Guidelines range and § 3553(a) factors); United States v. Tyson, 413 F.3d 824, 825 (8th Cir. 2005) (per curiam) (stating revocation sentences are reviewed for reasonableness in accordance with United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005)).

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