In this direct criminal appeal, Vernice Christian challenges the reasonableness of the twelve-month, within-Guidelines-range sentence that the District Court 1 imposed upon 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) (noting that 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)); see also 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) (2006) (setting statutory maximum revocation sentences and requiring that a court consider certain of the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) before imposing a revocation sentence); United States v. Perkins, 526 F.3d 1107, 1110 (8th Cir. 2008) (noting that a district court need not make specific findings on the § 3553(a) factors in a revocation proceeding and that a revocation sentence within the Guidelines range is accorded a presumption of reasonableness).

We affirm the district court’s judgment, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.