Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): and Application Note 11, which deal with revocation sentences, and neither of which were affected by 2007 amendments to § 4A1.2. The court noted a split in the circuits over how to interpret the second paragraph of Application Note 11, which states: “Where a revocation applies to multiple sentences, and such sentences are counted separately under § 4A1.2(a)(2), add the term of imprisonment imposed upon revocation to the sentence that will result in the greatest increase in criminal history points.” Compare United States v. Streat, 22 F.3d 109, 111-12 (6th Cir.1994) (treating revocation as single action applied to all prior suspended sentences), and United States v. Flores, 93 F.3d 587, 591-92 (9th Cir.1996) (same), with United States v. Norris, 319 F.3d 1278, 1285-88 (10th Cir. 2003) (<HOLDING>). The court followed Norris and determined that 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that where state court imposed multiple sentences on revocation of probation to be served either consecutively or concurrently note 11 is inapplicable and criminal history is calculated solely under  4a12 k (B) holding that standard for revocation of probation is preponderance of the evidence (C) holding probation revocation is not a stage of a criminal prosecution (D) holding that upon revocation of probation a court must grant credit for time served on probation and community control towards any newly imposed term of imprisonment and probation so that the total period of control probation and imprisonment does not exceed the statutory maximum (E) holding a court may consider a defendants criminal history even if that history is included in the defendants criminal history category
Output (English): holding probation revocation is not a stage of a criminal prosecution