[Unpublished]
Raymond L. Wiley appeals the above-Guidelines sentence the district court
1
imposed upon revoking his supervised release. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms.
Wileys counsel has filed a brief challenging the sentence as substantively unreasonable. The district court did not impose a substantively unreasonable sentence. See United States v. Miller, 557 F.3d 910, 916 (8th Cir. 2009) (substantive reasonableness of revocation sentence is reviewed under deferential abuse-of-discretion standard); cf. United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 464 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (“it will be the unusual case when we reverse a district court sentence--whether within, above, or below the applicable Guidelines range--as substantively unreasonable”). The record reflects that the revocation sentence was within the statutory maximum, and that the court considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 3583(e)(3) (maximum revocation prison term is 3 years if underlying offense is Class B felony), (h) (length of new supervised-release term shall not exceed term authorized by statute for offense of conviction, less revocation prison terms), (k) (for violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2422, the maximum term of supervised release is life); United States v. Larison, 432 F.3d 921, 922-924 (8th Cir. 2006) (revocation sentence may be unreasonable if district court fails to consider relevant § 3553(a) factor, gives significant weight to improper or irrelevant factor, or commits clear error of judgment).
The judgment is affirmed.
FOOTNOTES
1
. The Honorable Beth Phillips, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri.
PER CURIAM.