of the case.” United States v. Haack, 403 F.3d 997, 1004 (8th Cir.2005). In this case, Redmond argues that the court did not give enough weight to the Guidelines range of six to twelve months’ imprisonment. However, this factor alone is not determinative, as the Guidelines are “purely advisory” in nature. Larison, 432 F.3d at 922. The district court considered many different factors in Redmond’s case, as evidenced by the sentencing transcript. After hearing arguments regarding the original 21-month sentence, th he Guidelines recommended five to eleven months’ imprisonment upon revocation of supervised release, a 60-month sentence was not unreasonable considering defendant’s repeated violations and ongoing criminal conduct); United States v. Cotton, 399 F.3d 913, 916 (8th Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>); Brown, 203 F.3d at 558 (holding that
holding that defendants 46month aboveguidelines sentence upon revocation of supervised release was not unreasonable even where the guidelines recommended a sentence of only seven to thirteen months holding that reasonableness review applies to a sentence imposed upon a revocation of supervised release holding that further supervised release may be ordered as a sentence for violation of supervised release holding that defendants 36month aboveguidelines but belowstatutorymaximum sentence upon revocation of supervised release was not unreasonable where the district court had discussed both the guidelines and other  3553a factors during sentencing holding that invitederror doctrine precludes defendant from challenging sentence of supervised release where defendant requested sentence of supervised release