Kari Valles challenges as unreasonable the 18-month prison sentence the district court 1 imposed after revoking her supervised release. On appeal, she argues that the district court failed to properly weigh the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, and that it was not enough for the court merely to list the factors. We affirm.

After reviewing the record, we conclude that the district court’s discussion of the relevant sentencing factors was sufficient to allow for meaningful appellate review, see United States v. Bear Robe, 521 F.3d 909, 910 (8th Cir. 2008) (district court must adequately explain sentence to allow for meaningful appellate review), and that the sentence is not unreasonable, see United States v. Larison, 432 F.3d 921, 922-23 (8th Cir. 2006) (discussing review of revocation sentences for unreasonableness).

Significantly, the district court was authorized to convert Valles’s unserved home detention into an equivalent period of imprisonment, and add it to her Chapter 7 Guidelines range. See U.S.S.G. § 7B1.3(d), p.s. (unserved home detention imposed in connection with sentence for which revocation is ordered shall be ordered served in addition to sanction determined under U.S.S.G. § 7B1.4, p.s., and may be converted to equivalent period of imprisonment). Further, the court expressly stated that it had considered relevant section 3553(a) factors, see United States v. Franklin, 397 F.3d 604, 606-07 (8th Cir. 2005) (evidence that district court was aware of § 3553(a) factors is sufficient), and specifically mentioned the need to incarcerate Valles long enough for her to participate in and benefit from anger-management training, see 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(D) (court shall consider need for sentence imposed to provide defendant with medical care or other correctional treatment in most effective manner).

Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is affirmed.