¹ The Honorable Linda R. Reade, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Iowa. counsel has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief suggesting that the revocation sentence is unreasonable because it was based in part on an erroneously calculated criminal history category. In a pro se brief, Perry asserts several arguments. As to the issue raised by counsel, we conclude that the district court did not plainly err in calculating the Chapter 7 Guidelines range using a Category IV criminal history because the district court had applied a Category IV criminal history at Perry’s original sentencing, and there was no evidence to support Perry’s claim that one of his prior convictions had been expunged. See United States v. Miller, 557 F.3d 910, 916 (8th Cir. 2009) (“Procedural sentencing errors are forfeited, and therefore may be reviewed only for plain error, if no objection was raised in the district court.”); see also U.S.S.G. § 7B1.4 (stating that, at revocation, the criminal-history category is the category applicable at the time the defendant was originally sentenced to a term of supervision). As to Perry’s pro se arguments, we decline to consider any ineffective-assistance issues. See United States v. Hughes, 330 F.3d 1068, 1069 (8th Cir. 2003) (indicating that ineffective-assistance claims are more properly raised in collateral proceedings). Next, we conclude that Perry was not entitled to any credit toward his new term of supervised release for time he served on probation. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(h) (providing that a district court may, following revocation, “include a requirement that the defendant be placed on a term of supervised release after imprisonment” that “shall not exceed the term of supervised release authorized by statute for the offense that resulted in the original term of supervised release, less any term of imprisonment” that was imposed after revocation, but not stipulating that the length is less the supervised release time already served). We further conclude that the district court properly calculated the Chapter 7 Guidelines range by using a Grade B violation, as the Grade B classification was justified by Perry’s actual conduct. See United States v. Mendoza, 782 F.3d 1046, 1048 (8th Cir. 2015) (per