Michael R. Petreikis appeals the twelvemonth prison sentence the district court 1 *574 imposed upon' revoking his supervised release for the second time. See United States v. Petreikis, 551 F.3d 822, 825 (8th Cir. 2009) (affirming Petreikis’s first revocation sentence). Petreikis argues his sentence “was greater than necessary to accomplish the goals of sentencing, and was therefore unreasonable.” In Petreikis’s view, the district court “failed to give adequate weight to important factors,” including Petreikis’s advanced age, failing health, efforts to improve the circumstances of his supervised release before absconding, and the lack of “evidence that he committed any new offenses” “[d]uring his absence from supervision.” Having carefully reviewed the record, we conclude the district court properly considered the relevant sentencing factors, see 18 U.S.C. §§ 3553(a), 3583(e)(3), and did not impose an unreasonable revocation sentence. See United States v. Perkins, 526 F.3d 1107, 1110-11 (8th Cir. 2008); United States v. Larison, 432 F.3d 921, 923-24 (8th Cir. 2006).

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