Russell Hart appeals his sentence of twenty-four months imprisonment and ten years of supervised release which the district court 1 imposed upon revoking Hart’s supervised release. According to Hart, “the district court appeared to consider appropriate sentencing factors” but erred “in weighing them[,] discounting important *575 factors while overvaluing others.” Hart argues the district court failed to account for Hart’s “difficulties while on supervision” and his need and “willingness to participate in mental health as well as drug and alcohol treatment.” This, Hart contends, led the district court to “cho[o]se a sentence and a term of supervision ... far greater than necessary to serve federal sentencing purposes.” We conclude, after careful review of the record, the district court properly considered the relevant sentencing factors, see 18 U.S.C. §§ 3553(a), 3583(e)(3), did not abuse its discretion, and imposed a sentence which is not unreasonable. See United States v. Franklin, 397 F.3d 604, 606-07 (8th Cir. 2005); United States v. White Face, 383 F.3d 733, 740 (8th Cir. 2004).

We affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B(1), (4).