Opinion ID: 53170
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Johnston’s Abuse of Discretion Argument

Text: We review the district court’s decision to exceed the advisory sentencing range in Chapter 7 of the Sentencing Guidelines, U.S.S.G. § 7B1.4, for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Silva, 443 F.3d 795, 798 (11th Cir. 2006). Chapter 7 of the Sentencing Guidelines governs violations of supervised release and contains policy statements, one of which provides recommended ranges of imprisonment applicable upon revocation. U.S.S.G. § 7B1.4, p.s. We have consistently held that the policy statements of Chapter 7 are merely advisory and not binding. Silva, 443 F.3d at 799. “While the district court is required to consider the policy statements, it is not bound by them.” Id. When exceeding the recommended range, the court must indicate that it considered the Chapter 7 policy statements. Id. “[I]t is enough that there is some indication that the district court was aware of and considered them.” Aguillard, 217 F.3d at 1320. In the instant case, the district court explicitly calculated the Chapter 7 guideline range and the statutory maximum and determined that the guideline range was inadequate. Therefore, it is clear from the record that the district court was aware of and considered the Chapter 7 policy statements, and, thus, the court 6 did not abuse its discretion in imposing a sentence that exceeded the guideline range. See Aguillard, 217 F.3d at 1320.