Robert Allen directly appeals after the district court 1 revoked his supervised release and sentenced him to 18 months in prison plus 8 additional years of supervised release. His counsel has moved for leave to withdraw, and has filed a brief challenging the reasonableness of Allen’s revocation sentence. Allen has submitted multiple pro se filings, suggesting (1) that he received ineffective assistance of counsel, (2) that the court should have recused sua sponte, (3) that he should have been granted a continuance during the revocation hearing, and (4) that the district court’s revocation decision was unfounded.

Upon careful review, we conclude that Allen’s revocation sentence is not unreasonable. See United States v. Petreikis, 551 F.3d 822, 824 (8th Cir. 2009). As to Allen’s pro se assertions, we first decline to consider his ineffective-assistance claims on direct appeal. See United States v. Hughes, 330 F.3d 1068, 1069 (8th Cir. 2003). Second, Allen’s claim that the district court should have recused is without merit. Third, we note there was no counseled motion for a continuance. See Abdullah v. United States, 240 F.3d 683, 686 (8th Cir. 2001). Fourth, we conclude that the district court’s revocation decision was not clearly erroneous, as it was supported by testimony at the revocation hearing. See United States v. Black Bear, 542 F.3d 249, 252 (8th Cir. 2008) (clear-error review); see also United States v. Perkins, 526 F.3d 1107, 1109 (8th Cir. 2008).

The judgment is affirmed, and we grant counsel leave to withdraw. Allen’s pending pro se motions are denied as moot.