Opinion ID: 154185
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Departure from Chapter 7

Text: 6 Mr. Burdex contends that Chapter 7 of the Sentencing Guidelines is authoritative and should not be departed from except for extraordinarily compelling reasons. Aplt's Br. at 12. Mr. Burdex relies on two recent Supreme Court decisions for this proposition: Williams v. United States, 503 U.S. 193 (1992), and Stinson v. United States, 508 U.S. 36 (1993). Mr. Burdex claims that his situation is not extraordinary, and therefore, the district court erred by sentencing him to substantially more time in prison than Chapter 7 of the Sentencing Guidelines allows. As Mr. Burdex's counsel graciously admitted at oral argument, the viability of this argument has been foreclosed by our decision in United States v. Hurst, 78 F.3d 482, 48384 (10th Cir. 1996) (reaffirming rule in Lee, 957 F.2d at 773, that the policy statements regarding revocation of supervised release contained in Chapter 7 . . . are advisory rather than mandatory in nature).