The Honorable William G. Cambridge, Chief Judge, United States Distric t 1 Court for the District of Nebraska. United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 97-2574

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of Nebraska. Robert S. Hermanson, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: November 28, 1997. Filed: December 8, 1997

___________ Before WOLLMAN, LOKEN, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM.
After Robert S. Hermanson pleaded guilty to transporting stolen property i n interstate commerce, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2314, the district court sentenced him 1 to 21 months imprisonme nt and three years supervised release; Hermanson & s period of supervised release commenced in February 1996. Hermanson subsequently admitted in open court that he had violated his supervised rele ase conditions by, inter alia, failing to refrai n from possessing and using alcohol; nevertheless, at the March 24, 199 7 dispositional hearing, the court continued Hermanso n & s supervision, cautioning him that-2-

he could be imprisoned if he were again to violate his supervised release conditions

. The district court subsequently received informati on that Hermanson had again violated his supe rvised release conditions, and at the ensuing revocation hearing, Hermanso n admitted--andthe court found--that he had again used alcohol. Although Hermanson had a recommended Guidelines imprisonment range of 3 to 9 months under U.S

. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 7B1. 4(a), p.s. (1995), the court revoked Hermanson & s super visedrelease and sentenced him to 24 months imprisonment, with a recommendation to the Bureau of Prisons that Hermanson receive intensive treatment for al cohol abuse as Hermanson required “long-term, intensive treatment for alcoho l abuse in a highly structured environment.” Hermanson now challenges his sentence , and we affirm.

We first note that Hermanson & s sentence does not exceed the maximu m authorized under the revocation statute, see 18 U.S.C. § § 3583(e)(3); 3559(a)(3); 2314, and that the district court was not bound to impose a term of imprisonment within the range recommended under Chapter 7 of the Guidelines, see United States v. Carr , 66 F.3d 981, 983 (8th Cir. 1995) (per curiam) (because Chapter 7 of Guidelines serve s nonbi nding, advisory role, the “district court is free to depart from Chapter 7 & s suggested sentences when, in its considered discretion , such a departure is warranted”). Given the court & s desire to afford Hermanson a serious opportunity for alcoho l tr eatment, we cannot say the court abused its discretion in imposing the revocatio n sentence it did. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) (requiring consideration of factors set forth in, inter alia, 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1) and (a)(2)(D)); 18 U.S .C. § 3553(a)(1) (court shall consider history an d characteristics of defendant); 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(D) (need to provide defend ant with necessary medical care or other correctional treatment in most effective manner is factor for consideration); United States v. Grimes , 54 F.3d 489, 492 (8th Cir. 1995) (standard of review); United States v. Thornell , No. 97-1534, 1997 WL 693050, at * 1-2 (8th Cir. Nov. 6, 1997) (14-month sentence imposed upon revocation of defendant & s supe rvised release when suggested Guidelines imprisonment range was 3 to 9 mo nths was neither unreasonable nor abuse of discretion, because district court-3-

properl y determined halfway house was insufficient for defendant who require d intensive and continuous drug treatment).
Finally, we reject Hermanson & s contention that the district court failed to consider applicable policy statements, as the hearing transcript clearl y demonstrates the court did
so. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
A true copy.

Attest:
CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.