“considered the factors listed in U.S.C. 3553(a)” and imposed a fourteen-month sentence. Parker contends that the district court procedurally erred by not adequately explaining the reasons for the fourteen-month sentence. We review a district court’s revocation sentence using the same standards applied to initial sentencing decisions. United States v. Miller, 557 F.3d 910, 915-16 (8th Cir. 2009). We first review to ensure that the district court did not commit a significant procedural error. United States v. Dace, 660 F.3d 1011, 1013 (8th Cir. 2011). We then evaluate the substantive reasonableness of the sentence under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard. United States v. Timberlake, 6 e substantively unreasonable. See United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, we affirm. 1 . The Honorable
holding that a court of appeals may apply a presumption of reasonableness to a district court sentence that reflects a proper application of the sentencing guidelines holding that sentence within guidelines range enjoys a presumption of reasonableness holding that we may apply a presumption of reasonableness to a sentence within the guidelines range holding a court of appeals may apply a presumption of reasonableness to a district court sentence that reflects a proper application of the sentencing guidelines recognizing a presumption of reasonableness