1 The Honorable Gary A. Fenner, United St ates District Judge for the Western District of Missouri. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 10-1401

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the Western * District of Missouri. Johnny W. Swanner, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant, *

___________ Submitted: June 3, 2010 Filed: June 15, 2010

___________ Before MELLOY, BOWMAN, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM.

While Johnny W. Swanner wa s serving supervised release after completing a federal prison sentence for a drug offense, the district court 1 found that he committed multiple violations of his release conditions , as alleged in two violation reports, and revoked supervised release. The court se ntenced him to 24 months in prison and 3 years of supervised release, and Swanner appeals. For reversal, he disputes many of the facts recited in the violation reports, and he also argues that (1) his sentence is too-2- long, (2) defense counsel re ndered ineffective assistance, (3) he is not receiving adequate medical treatment in prison, (4) hewas not shown the arrest warrant, and the charges were not read to him, when he wa s arrested on the violator’s warrant; (5) he never received disclosure of the evidence ag ainst him or written notice of the alleged violations; (6) his revocation hearing was not held within a reasonable time after he was arrested; and (7) he was not informed of all of the alleged violations until the revocation hearing. For the following reasons, we affirm.
Swanner waived any challengeto the violation reports ’ factual allegations. He admitted some alleged facts, and as to the others he stipulated that law enforcement officials would testify in conformity with their reports to the probation officer, he did not deny that those reports we re true, he declined to sp eak when given an opportunity to do so, and he did not even attemp t to submit rebuttal evidence. SeeUnited States v. Booker , 576 F.3d 506, 509-11 (8th Cir.) (waiver is intentional relinquishment of known right, and waived claims are unr eviewable on appeal), cert. denied , 130 S. Ct. 777 (2009).
As to his sentence, Swanner has not rebutted the presumption that the sentence--at the low end of the undisputed Guidelines range, and within statutory limits--is reasonable. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3), (h); 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A); United States v. Petreikis , 551 F.3d 822, 824 (8th Cir. 2009) (revocation sentence within Guidelines range is accorded pres umption of substantive reasonableness on appeal). Further, his claims of ineff ective assistance of counsel are not properly before us in this direct criminal appeal, see United States v. Ramirez-Hernandez , 449 F.3d 824, 827 (8th Cir. 2006), and neither are his complaints about his medical treatment in prison.
Because Swanner’s remaining arguments were not raised below, we review only for plain error, see United States v. Aldridge , 561 F.3d 759, 765 (8th Cir. 2009), cert. denied , 130 S. Ct. 1095 (2010); and we find no reversible plain error, because-3- Swanner has not shown that any such error affected his substantial rights or seriously affected the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings, see United States v. Wisecarver , 598 F.3d 982, 989 (8th Cir. 2010) (describing steps in plain error review).
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

______________________________