York Wilson appeals the district court’s 1 order revoking his supervised release and imposing a 24-month sentence. His counsel has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), arguing that the alleged violation was not established by a preponderance of the evidence, and that the district court imposed a substantively unreasonable sentence.

We conclude the district court did not clearly err in finding that Wilson violated 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) (fact-finding as to whether violation occurred is reviewed for clear error); United States v. Carothers, 337 F.3d 1017, 1019 (8th Cir. 2003) (credibility determinations are exclusive domain of the sentencing judge, and are virtually unreviewable on *906 appeal). We also conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Wilson, as it imposed the sentence after properly considering the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. See United States v. Miller, 557 F.3d 910, 917 (8th. Cir. 2009) (under substantive-reasonableness test, district court abuses its discretion if it fails to consider relevant § 3553(a) factor, gives significant weight to improper or irrelevant factor, or commits clear error of judgment in weighing factors); United States v. Merrival, 521 F.3d 889, 890 (8th Cir. 2008) (substantive reasonableness of revocation sentence is reviewed under deferential abuse-of-discretion standard).

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.