*The HONORABLE WILLIAM W. SCHWARZER, United States

District Judge for the Northern District of California,

sitting by designation.

___________

No. 95-2663

___________

United States of America, *

*

Plaintiff - Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Minnesota.

Jimmy Calvin Caves, *

* [PUBLISHED]

Defendant - Appellant. *

___________

 Submitted: December 12, 1995

 Filed: January 16, 1996

___________

Before BOWMAN and LOKEN, Circuit Judges, and SCHWARZER,* District

Judge.

___________

PER CURIAM.

In May 1992, Jimmy Calvin Caves completed a federal prison

term and commenced a five-year term of supervised release imposed

by the District of Minnesota. In December 1994, Caves pleaded

guilty to distributing marijuana in the Eastern District of

Oklahoma and was sentenced to 108 months in prison. The government

then commenced this supervised release revocation proceeding in the

District of Minnesota. At the revocation hearing, Caves admitted

that his Oklahoma drug conviction violated a supervised release
 1

The HONORABLE MICHAEL J. DAVIS, United States District Judge

for the District of Minnesota.

-2-

condition. The district court1 revoked Caves's supervised release

and sentenced him to twelve months in prison, to be served

consecutively to his Oklahoma sentence. Caves appeals that

sentence.

Chapter 7 of the Sentencing Guidelines sets forth policy

statements for dealing with violations of supervised release. The

policy statements provide that Caves's drug offense was a Grade A

violation, U.S.S.G. § 7B1.1(a)(1)(ii), for which the court "shall

revoke" supervised release, § 7B1.3(a)(1). In this case, Caves and

the government agreed on a revocation sentencing range of twelve to

eighteen months, the minimum prescribed by § 7B1.4(a). Regarding

the issue of consecutive sentencing, § 7B1.3(f) provides:

Any term of imprisonment imposed upon the revocation of

. . . supervised release shall be ordered to be served

consecutively to any sentence of imprisonment that the

defendant is serving, whether or not the sentence . . .

being served resulted from the conduct that is the basis

of the revocation . . . . 

Unlike other Guidelines policy statements, Chapter 7 policy

statements are advisory, rather than binding, upon the district

court. See United States v. Levi, 2 F.3d 842, 845 (8th Cir. 1993).

In this case, Caves urged the district court to exercise its

sentencing discretion and impose a concurrent revocation sentence

because Caves's original offense conduct and his violation of

supervised release had already resulted in an increased prison term

being imposed by the Eastern District of Oklahoma. After hearing

argument on this issue, the district court imposed the twelve month

consecutive sentence without further explanation.

On appeal, Caves argues that we must reverse because the

district court (i) did not state on the record that it had
-3-

considered the sentencing factors specified in 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e),

and (ii) did not explain the reasons for the sentence it imposed.

We disagree. The court imposed the minimum sentence in the range

to which the parties had agreed. It followed an explicit policy

statement in making that sentence consecutive. Caves cites no case

requiring a sentencing court to explain a revocation sentence that

is consistent with all applicable policy statements, as well as an

agreement of the parties. We decline Caves's invitation to assume

that the district court did not consider the basic statutory

sentencing factors enumerated in 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e). We also

reject as without merit his contention that the district court

abused its discretion by imposing a twelve-month consecutive

sentence for this very serious violation of the conditions of

Caves's supervised release.

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

A true copy.

Attest:

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