David Tensley directly appeals the sentence the district court 1 imposed after revoking his supervised release. His counsel has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief questioning the substantive reasonableness of Tensley’s revocation sentence.

Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court did not impose a substantively unreasonable revocation sentence. See United States v. Miller, 557 F.3d 910, 915-16 (8th Cir. 2009) (discussing standards and procedures for reviewing district court’s sentencing decision.upon revocation of supervised release). Accordingly, we affirm. We also grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.