Cheryl Anderson appeals the sentence the district court 1 imposed upon revoking her probation. She argues only that the district court committed procedural error by selecting a sentence based on “clearly erroneous facts.” After careful review, we conclude that the district court based its sentencing decision on appropriate considerations and that no abuse of discretion occurred. See United States v. Miller, 557 F.3d 919, 922 (8th Cir. 2009) (appellate court reviews probation revocation sentence for abuse of discretion, using same standards as those applied to initial sentencing decisions). Accordingly, we affirm.