[Unpublished]

Mark Hopkins challenges the 24-month prison term the district court 1 imposed upon revoking his supervised release. On appeal, Hopkins’s counsel has moved to withdraw, and filed a brief arguing that the sentence imposed is greater than necessary to meet the statutory goals of sentencing, and that the district court did not adequately consider or discuss the statutory sentencing factors.

*840 Upon careful review of the entire sentencing record, we conclude that the court committed no procedural error, adequately explained its reasons for the sentence, and imposed a substantively reasonable sentence. See United States v. Miller, 557 F.3d 919, 922 (8th Cir. 2009) (appeals court reviews district court’s revocation sentencing decisions using same standards for initial sentencing decisions; court first ensures that district court committed no significant procedural error, then considers substantive reasonableness of sentence); United States v. Thunder, 553 F.3d 605, 608 (8th Cir. 2009) (court is not required to mechanically list every 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factor; evidence that court was aware of relevant factors is sufficient).

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