United States Court of Appeals
                            For the Eighth Circuit
                        ___________________________

                                No. 21-2488
                        ___________________________

                            United States of America

                                      Plaintiff - Appellee

                                        v.

             Angelo L. Hambrick, also known as Deangelo Hambrick

                                    Defendant - Appellant
                                  ____________

                     Appeal from United States District Court
                    for the Southern District of Iowa - Eastern
                                  ____________

                           Submitted: October 12, 2021
                             Filed: October 15, 2021
                                  [Unpublished]
                                 ____________

Before BENTON, KELLY, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges.
                           ____________

PER CURIAM.

      Angelo L. Hambrick appeals the Guidelines-range sentence the district court 1
imposed upon revoking his supervised release. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291, this court affirms.

      1
       The Honorable John J. Jarvey, Chief Judge, United States District Court for
the Southern District of Iowa.
       Hambrick’s counsel has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 

 (1967) and has moved for leave to withdraw. He challenges the sentence as
substantively unreasonable. This court concludes that the district court did not
impose a substantively unreasonable sentence. See United States v. Miller, 

, 916 (8th Cir. 2009) (substantive reasonableness of revocation sentence is
reviewed under deferential abuse-of-discretion standard). The record reflects that
the district court considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, and imposed a sentence
that was within the Guidelines range and below the statutory limit. See 18 U.S.C.
§§ 3583(e)(3) (maximum revocation prison term is 5 years if underlying offense is
Class A felony), (h) (length of new supervised-release term shall not exceed term
authorized by statute for offense of conviction, less revocation prison terms); United
States v. Larison, 

, 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); cf. United States v. Perkins, 

, 1110 (8th Cir. 2008)
(revocation sentence within Guidelines range is accorded presumption of substantive
reasonableness on appeal).

      The judgment is affirmed. Counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted.
                      ______________________________




                                         -2-