The district court 1 found that Dale Grau had violated his supervised release following his release from imprisonment on a federal identity-theft conviction. The court thus revoked supervised release and imposed a revocation sentence consisting of imprisonment and additional supervised release. Grau appeals, arguing that the district court erred in finding that he violated his supervised release and that it imposed an unreasonable revocation sentence.

Upon careful review of the evidence presented by the government at the revocation hearing, we conclude that the district court did not clearly err in finding that the government met its burden of proving that Grau had violated his supervised release, see United States v. Sistrunk, 612 F.3d 988, 991 (8th Cir. 2010) (standard of review). We also conclude that the revocation sentence was not substantively unreasonable, see United States v. Growden, 663 F.3d 982, 984 (8th Cir. 2011) (per curiam) (standard of review).

The judgment is affirmed. Counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted.