release. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(h). Cerre contends that a thirty-six-month sentence is too harsh for the Class C violation for which the district court revoked his supervised release, being publicly drunk and disorderly. But in imposing sentence, the court had to consider the totality of the circumstances. See Vigil, 696 F.3d at 1002. And in light of all of the circumstances at issue here, the court did not abuse its discretion in determining that a thirty-six-month prison sentence was appropriate. See id. at 1001-02 (upholding prison sentence above the advisory guideline range, with no further term of supervised release, based on the defendant’s “blatant, repeated violations of the conditions” of supervised release); United States v. Cordova, 461 F.3d 1184, 1189 (10th Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>). III. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, we
holding a sentence within the advisory guidelines range is presumptively reasonable holding the district courts revocation of defendants term of supervised release did not end the courts jurisdiction over defendants release holding that reasonableness review applies to a sentence imposed upon a revocation of supervised release holding sentence above advisory range for supervised release revocation was reasonable in light of the defendants history of recidivism and substance abuse holding that further supervised release may be ordered as a sentence for violation of supervised release