1 The Honorable Nanette K. Laughrey, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 07-3695

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Western District of Missouri. Ryan F. Staley, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: August 10, 2009 Filed: August 27, 2009

___________ Before MURPHY, COLLOTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Upon revoking Ryan Staley’s supervis ed release, the district court 1 sentenced Staley to 4 years in prison and 1 year of supervised release. He appeals.
In reviewing the sentence for abuse of disc retion, we must first ensure there was no significant procedural error--such as failing to consider the relevant 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors--and then assess the substan tive reasonableness of the sentence. See Gall v. United States , 128 S. Ct. 586, 597 (2007); United States v. Miller , 557 F.3d-2- 910, 915-16 (8th Cir. 2009) (court reviews district court’s revocation sentencing decision using same standards applied to in itial sentencing decisions). As to whether the district court committed significant procedur al error, in the absence of an objection at sentencing, we review for plain error, see Miller , 557 F.3d at 916, and we find none here. The record shows that the district court considered various § 3553(a) factors, including Staley’s continued drug and alcohol use, his history of violence against family members, his need for substance- abuse and mental-health treatment, and the need to deter others from e ngaging in similar conduct. See18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) (specifying § 3553(a) factors that courts must consider in revocation decision, including § 3553(a)(1), (a)(2)(B)-(D)); United States v. White Face , 383 F.3d 733, 740 (8th Cir. 2004) (district court need not list every § 3553(a) consideration when sentencing defendant upon revocation of supervised release).
We further conclude that Staley’s se ntence is not substantively unreasonable. First, it was below the statutory maxi mum for his underlying offense. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) (upon revocation, maximum time defendant may be required to serve in prison is 5 years if offense that resulted interm of supervised release is Class A felony), § 3583(h) (revocation sentence ma y include imprisonment and additional supervised release; however, additiona l supervised-release term may not exceed supervised-release term authorized by st atute for offense resulting in original supervised release, less any revocation pris on term). Second, th ere is no indication that the district court failed to consider a relevant factor, gave significant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor, or made a clear error of judgment in weighing the factors. See Miller , 557 F.3d at 917 (listing circumstances where sentencing court abuses its discretion, resulting in unreasonable sentence).
Accordingly, we affirm. We grant c ounsel’s motion to withdraw, subject to counsel informing appellant about proce dures for seeking rehearing and filing a petition for certiorari.

______________________________