Alvaro Rene Jerez-Ravaric challenges the reasonableness of the six-month sentence the District Court 1 imposed after revoking his supervised release. Upon careful review, we conclude that the revocation sentence was not unreasonable, as it was within the advisory U.S. Sentencing Guidelines range and below the statutory maximum. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) (limiting the maximum term of imprisonment upon revocation of supervised release to two years for a Class C felony); United States v. Petreikis, 551 F.3d 822, 824 (8th Cir. 2009) (applying a presumption of substantive reasonableness to a revocation sentence within the Guidelines range); United States v. Perkins, 526 F.3d 1107, 1110 (8th Cir. 2008) (noting that a district court need not make specific findings on the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors if there is evidence that the court was aware of the relevant factors); United States v. Tyson, 413 F.3d 824, 825 (8th Cir. 2005) (per cu-riam) (holding that revocation sentences should be reviewed under the “unreasonableness” standard announced in United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005)).

We affirm the sentence imposed by the District Court.