Quentin Jetton appeals the sentence that the district court 1 imposed upon revoking his supervised release. His counsel has filed a brief challenging the reasonableness of Jetton’s revocation sentence and requesting permission to withdraw.

This court concludes that the district court committed no abuse of discretion, and that Jetton’s revocation sentence is not unreasonable. See United States v. Perkins, 526 F.3d 1107, 1110 (8th Cir. 2008) (appellate court reviews revocation sentence for abuse of discretion; district court abuses discretion if sentence imposed is unreasonable); see also United States v. Miller, 557 F.3d 910, 915-16 (8th Cir. 2009) (court reviews revocation sentencing decisions using same standards as applied to initial sentencing decisions; first ensuring that district court committed no significant procedural error such as failing to consider relevant 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, and then considering substantive reasonableness of sentence). The district court sentenced Jetton to a prison term below the statutory maximum, and gave sound reasons for its sentencing decision. Cf. United States v. Larison, 432 F.3d 921, 924 (8th Cir. 2006) (although defendant received maximum sentence available under statute, district court justified its decision by giving excellent supporting reasons, including its grave concern over defendant’s numerous and repeated supervised-release violations).

*669 This court grants counsel permission to withdraw, and affirms.