United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 24-1215 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee v. Brian LeBeau lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of South Dakota - Western ____________ Submitted: June 18, 2024 Filed: June 24, 2024 [Unpublished] ____________ Before SMITH, SHEPHERD, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM.

Brian LeBeau appeals after the district court1 revoked his supervised release and sentenced him to 10 months in prison and an additional period of supervision.

LeBeau challenges the substantive reasonableness of his sentence.

The Honorable Karen E. Schreier, United States District Judge for the District of South Dakota.

After careful review of the record, we conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the revocation sentence. See United States v. Miller, 557 F.3d 910, 917-18 (8th Cir. 2009) (standard of review). There is no indication the district court failed to consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, gave significant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor, or committed a clear error of judgment in weighing relevant factors. See United States v. Larison, 432 F.3d 921, 923 (8th Cir. 2006) (reciting considerations to discern whether revocation sentence is unreasonable); see also United States v. Bridges, 569 F.3d 374, 379 (8th Cir. 2009) (district courts have wide latitude to weigh the § 3553(a) factors in each case and are allowed to assign greater weight to some factors over others). Moreover, the revocation sentence is within the Guidelines range and accorded a presumption of substantive reasonableness on appeal. See United States v. Perkins, 526 F.3d 1107, 1110 (8th Cir. 2008).

Accordingly, we affirm. ______________________________

-2-