1 The Honorable Lyle E. Strom, United Stat es District Judge for the District of Nebraska, sitting by designation.

2 The Honorable Fernando J. Gaitan, Jr ., Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 09-2291

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Western District of Missouri. Sirron R. Primers, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: January 11, 2010 Filed: January 15, 2010

___________ Before MURPHY and BYE, Circuit Judges, and STROM, 1 District Judge.

___________ PER CURIAM. Upon revoking Sirron R. Primers supervis ed release, the district court 2 sentenced him to twelve months and oneday in prison followed by two years of supervised release. Primers appeals cl aiming the two-year period of supervised release is unreasonable. We affirm.3 Primers was initially sentenced to eighty-four months in prison followed by five years of supervised release after plead ing guilty to a drug conspiracy charge. The district court found Primers violated the c onditions of his supervised release by using a controlled substance, failing to successfu lly participate in a drug treatment program (including failing to provide urine specimens ), failing to maintain employment, and failing to notify his probation officer of a change of residence.
-2- The district court initially sentenced Pri mers to twelve m onths and one day in prison followed by no period of supervised re lease. When counsel for the government reminded the district court the probation office was recommending a period of supervised release to follow the period of imprisonment, the district court added the two-year period of supervised release without further explanati on. Primers contends the district court's failure to explain the additional sentence – after already determining the initial sentence was sufficient – renders th e two-year period of supervised release unreasonable because the district court did not adequately explain why that portion of the sentence was "sufficient, but not gr eater than necessary" to comply with the sentencing purposes set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
Because Primers did not object or raise th is claim in the district court, we review for plain error only. United States v. Miller , 557 F.3d 910, 916 (8th Cir. 2009). The district court's sentence, includi ng the term of supervised release, was presumptively reasonable because it fell w ithin the parameters of 18 U.S.C. § 3583. See United States v. Petreikis , 551 F.3d 822, 824 (8th Cir. 2009). As a consequence, a lengthy explanation of the § 3553(a) factor s, or the district court's reasons for imposing its chosen senten ce, were unnecessary. Id. (citing Rita v. United States , 551 U.S. 338, 356 (2007)).

The record shows Primers was arrested fo r violating the terms of his supervised release only eight months into a five-year period, 3 meaning his overall term of supervised release would be significantly re duced unless the district court imposed an additional term of supervised release follo wing the term of imprisonment. The record-3- further shows this was the reason the probation office recommended an additional term of supervised release, and the distri ct court indicated Primers would be required to do supervised release "on the court's terms" rather than on his own terms. Sent. Tr. at 21.
We find no plain error under these circumstances. The sentence is affirmed.

______________________________