Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Jeffrey S. SAUERBRY, Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-10-31
Citations: 203 F. App'x 755
Docket Number: No. 06-1244
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Jeffrey S. SAUERBRY, Appellant.
Judges: Before MURPHY, BYE, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 203
Pages: 755–756

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Jeffrey S. SAUERBRY, Appellant.
No. 06-1244.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted: Oct. 27, 2006.
Filed: Oct. 31, 2006.
Matt Jeffrey Whitworth, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Kansas City, MO, for Appellee.
Travis Poindexter, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Kansas City, MO, for Appellant.
Jeffrey S. Sauerbry, Leavenworth, KS, pro se.
Before MURPHY, BYE, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Jeffrey Sauerbry appeals the 12-month prison sentence that the district court imposed after revoking his supervised release. For reversal, Sauerbry argues the sentence was unreasonable because the court failed to consider the factors listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
We conclude that the record reflects the district court considered the appropriate factors, and that the revocation sentence was not unreasonable. See United States v. Nelson, 453 F.3d 1004, 1006 (8th Cir. 2006) (district court must consider advisory sentencing range and policy statements found in Guidelines Chapter 7, and must also consider § 3553(a) factors); United States v. Larison, 432 F.3d 921, 923 (8th Cir.2006) (district court need not mechanically list every § 3553(a) consideration when sentencing defendant upon revocation of supervised release); United States v. Tyson, 413 F.3d 824, 825 (8th Cir.2005) (per curiam) (revocation sentences are reviewed for unreasonableness in accordance with United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005)); United States v. White Face, 383 F.3d 733, 740 (8th Cir.2004) (all that is required in revocation sentencing is evidence that court has considered relevant matters and that some reason be stated for its decision).
Accordingly, we affirm.
. The Honorable Fernando J. Gaitan, Jr, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.