United States Court of Appeals
                            FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
                                    ___________

                                    No. 07-3755
                                    ___________

United States of America,                *
                                         *
               Appellee,                 *
                                         * Appeal from the United States
      v.                                 * District Court for the
                                         * District of Nebraska.
Hubert Ruff,                             *
                                         * [UNPUBLISHED]
               Appellant.                *
                                    ___________

                              Submitted: April 7, 2009
                                 Filed: April 10, 2009
                                  ___________

Before BYE, COLLOTON, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.
                           ___________

PER CURIAM.

      Hubert Ruff appeals the sentence the district court1 imposed after revoking his
supervised release. He argues that the court abused its discretion by imposing a term
of imprisonment that was unreasonable and excessive, and that the court made an error
of judgment in balancing the factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).

       After reviewing the record, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its
discretion. First, the 18-month prison term imposed by the court was below the

      1
        The Honorable Joseph F. Bataillon, Chief Judge, United States District Court
for the District of Nebraska.
relevant statutory maximum. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) (for Class A felony,
maximum term of imprisonment upon revocation of supervised release is 5 years).
Second, the district court appropriately considered factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a),
including the applicable advisory Guidelines range. See Gall v. United States, 128 S.
Ct. 586, 597 (2007) (review standard); United States v. Miller, 

, 915-16
(8th Cir. 2009) (court reviews district court’s revocation sentencing decision using
same standards applied to initial sentencing decisions); United States v. Nelson, 

, 1006 (8th Cir. 2006) (appellate court reviews revocation sentence to
determine whether it is unreasonable in relation to, inter alia, advisory Guidelines
range and other § 3553(a) factors); see also United States v. Todd, 

, 897
(8th Cir. 2008) (in imposing sentence, district court need not mechanically recite
§ 3553(a) factors, especially when applying advisory Guidelines range). Third, Ruff’s
sentence within the advisory range is presumptively reasonable, see United States v.
Perkins, 

, 1110 (8th Cir. 2008), and we see no strong reasons that
required a non-guidelines sentence.

      Accordingly, we affirm.
                     ______________________________




                                         -2-