In this appeal following revocation of his supervised release, Scott Brocail challenges the district court’s 1 revocation sentence, arguing that it is unreasonable and does not reflect proper consideration of the sentencing factors listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). 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) (standard of review). The sentence is within the statutory limits of 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) and the range recommended by the Sentencing Guidelines, see United States v. Perkins, 526 F.3d 1107, 1110 (8th Cir. 2008) (revocation sentence within Guidelines range is accorded presumption of substantive reasonableness on appeal), and the record reflects that the district court considered and applied appropriate section 3553(a) factors, see id. (district court need not make specific findings on § 3553(a) factors).

Accordingly, we affirm, and we grant counsel leave to withdraw.