Derek Kok appeals after the district court 1 revoked his supervised release and imposed a revocation sentence of 11 months in prison, and 60 months of supervised release. Kok’s counsel has filed a brief arguing that the district court erroneously viewed revocation as mandatory, and imposed a substantively unreasonable revocation sentence. Counsel also moves for leave to withdraw.

As to the first argument, which was not raised before the district court, we conclude that review is for plain error, and that plain error did not occur, particularly in light of the court’s thorough explanation of its revocation decision. See United States v. Callaway, 762 F.3d 764, 759 (8th Cir. 2014) (procedural errors not objected to at sentencing are reviewed for plain error); see also United States v. Winston, 850 F.3d 377, 380 (8th Cir. 2017) (plain-error standard). We also conclude that the revocation sentence is not substantively unreasonable. See United States v. Merrival, 521 F.3d 889, 890 (8th Cir. 2008) (abuse-of-discretion standard of review).

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