1 The Honorable Laurie Smith Camp, United States District Judge for the District of Nebraska. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 06-2125

___________ United States of America, *
* Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of Nebraska. Daniel Matthew Synowiecki, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: February 23, 2007 Filed: March 2, 2007

___________ Before RILEY, MAGILL, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. While Daniel Synowiecki was serving th e supervised release portion of his bank fraud sentence, he violated his supe rvised release and the district court 1 sentenced him to 12 months in prison and 2 years of supervised release. During his second period of supervised release, he again violated his supervised release: ultimately he pleaded guilty to violating multiple release conditions, all Class C violations. The district court revoked s upervised release and sentenced him to 24 months in prison with no further period of s upervised release. This appeal followed.-2- For reversal Synowiecki argues that the distri ct court failed to consider the applicable Guidelines Chapter 7 revocati on range, and further, that th e court abused its discretion in imposing an excessive sentence and cl early erred in balancing the relevant sentencing factors.

Synowiecki is correct that the district c ourt was required to consider the Chapter 7 policy statements, see United States v. Hensley , 36 F.3d 39, 42 (8th Cir. 1994), and although we believe that the court indicated its awareness of the need to do so, the court failed to acknowledge the precise Chapter 7 revocation range applying to Synowiecki’s Grade C violations and crim inal history category. Further, the probation violation worksheet in the record reflects a revocation range that is based on a Grade B violation.

Nevertheless, regardless of whether any resulting erro r is reviewed for plain error or harmless error, the revocation sentence must be affirmed. First, a district court remains free to impose a revocati on sentence outside the Guidelines range suggested by the policy statements, if in its discretion the court believes that a higher sentence is warranted. See United States v. Larison , 432 F.3d 921, 922-23 (8th Cir. 2006). Second, our review of the record convi nces us that the district court was firm on the 24-month sentence because of Synowi ecki’s history of supervised release violations and flouting of authority, as we ll as his need for rehabilitation and to be incapacitated to protect society. Cf. Williams v. United States , 503 U.S. 193, 202-03 (1992) (when district court misapplies Guidelines, remand is required unless reviewing court determines, on ba sis of whole record, that error is harmless, i.e., error did not affect district court’s selection of sentence imposed); United States v. Sayre , 400 F.3d 599, 600-01 (8th Cir. 2005) (whether sentence was reviewed for plain error or harmless error, affirmance was appropriate because ultimate inquiry was whether district court’s error in following nonm andatory sentencing scheme affected defendant’s ultimate sentence, and it was cl ear court wanted to impose sentence it felt-3- appropriate on undisputed facts, making any remand futile), cert. denied , 126 S. Ct. 198 (2005).
Finally, we conclude that the revocation sentence was not unreasonable. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) (court must consider certain factors in determining revocation sentence, including those set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1) (nature and circumstances of offense and history and characteristics of defendant), and (a)(2)(C) (need to protect public from further crimes of defendant)); United States v. Tyson , 413 F.3d 824, 825 (8th Cir. 2005) (per curiam) (revocation sentences are reviewed for unreasonableness in accordance w ith United States v. Booker , 543 U.S. 220 (2005)). The district court was clearly concerned about the defendant's multiple violations of supervised release and the need to protect society. In addition, the district court articulated as a reason for imposing the sentence she did the defendant's unwillingness to cooperate with his probation officer or comply with the conditions of supervised release. The district court's stated reas ons for imposing a twenty-four month sentence are more than adequate to demonstrat e the reasonableness of the sentence.

Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________