Glenn Valentine directly appeals after the district court 1 revoked his supervised release and sentenced him to 24 months in prison. His counsel has filed a brief, arguing (1) that the government failed to prove a supervised-release violation had oe- *564 eurred, and (2) that the revocation sentence is unreasonable. His counsel has also moved for leave to withdraw.

Upon careful review we first conclude that the district court did not clearly err in finding that Valentine had violated the conditions of his supervised release. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) (court may revoke supervised release if it finds by preponderance of evidence that defendant violated conditions of supervised release); United States v. Perkins, 526 F.3d 1107, 1109 (8th Cir. 2008) (factfinding as to whether violation occurred is reviewed for clear error). Next, we conclude that Valentine’s 24-month within-Guidelines-range sentence is not unreasonable. See United States v. Growden, 663 F.3d 982, 984 (8th Cir. 2011) (per curiam) (revocation sentence is reviewed for substantive reasonableness under deferential abuse-of-discretion standard); United States v. Petreikis, 551 F.3d 822, 824 (8th Cir. 2009) (applying presumption of substantive reasonableness to revocation sentence within Guidelines range).

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, subject to counsel informing Valentine about procedures for seeking rehearing or filing a petition for certiorari.