In this direct criminal appeal, Craig Alan Pfeiferling challenges the sentence the district court 1 imposed after revoking his supervised release. Upon careful review, we conclude that the revocation sentence is not unreasonable. See 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)). We have also reviewed Pfeiferling’s pro se arguments and find them to be meritless. Accordingly, counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted, and the judgment is affirmed.